Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 2 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Urban Road Congestion

Helen Jackson: What plans he has to tackle road congestion in urban areas. [94209]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The integrated transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", set out a new approach to meeting local transport needs. In that document, we promised, and will deliver, extra money and new powers for local authorities to tackle congestion in their areas.

Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the key factor in reducing urban congestion is giving priority to good quality public transport? Is he prepared to take tough action where necessary if councils go wishy-washy on their commitment to public transport when faced with the tough decisions that are necessary to put that priority into action?

Mr. Prescott: The House will recall that Sheffield provided an excellent example of an integrated public transport system, but it was broken up by the previous Administration's commitment to privatisation and deregulation. Our local transport plans—we have now received 80 from local authorities and will be making decisions by December—are very much geared to reducing congestion in our cities and improving public transport. That will have to be agreed with the local authorities for them to receive the £700 million that we have put aside for those plans.
The House will be aware also that the supertram in Sheffield, which ran into difficulties under privatisation and deregulation, was rescued by renegotiation by this Administration and placed in an integrated policy. Use of the supertram has increased by 3 million passengers in two years, and that is a good example of integration in a transport system.

Mr. Don Foster: Given the importance that the Secretary of State places on public transport to reduce traffic congestion, does he accept that improving public transport requires increased investment? Is he aware that the Library has only today prepared for me new figures showing that, after five years of a Labour Government, to the end of the comprehensive spending review period, total spending on local and public transport is set to fall by 7.5 per cent. in real terms? How will that help to improve public transport?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes the mistake of not taking into account the private investment that we are negotiating. Investment, whether public or private, will improve the underground or the channel tunnel rail link. He asked about investment: £7 billion is going into our underground in the public-private partnership and £6 billion is going into the channel tunnel link. That has to be added in to get the total figure, and he should revisit his figures.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Given that Leeds is one of the two cities that will be trialling road-pricing technology, can my right hon. Friend give my constituents an assurance that there will be significant investment in public transport in the city, in particular in the proposed Leeds supertram, before a decision is taken about the introduction of road pricing?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is aware that we consider Leeds to be setting a good example in integrating transport. We have given some extra resources and are considering the extra demands in the local transport plans, but those decisions cannot be made until December.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The only way to tackle the increasingly serious urban congestion in my constituency is to authorise the A3 Hindhead improvement. Can the right hon. Gentleman help me? Although there are so many Transport Ministers, why have we been unable, in 30 months, to secure a visit from a single one of them to see that spot? It is the only single carriageway stretch between the home of Transport Ministers in Scotland and the very popular port of Portsmouth. Does he have a policy prohibiting visits to Conservative constituencies or can he help us to find a date on which a Minister will come to see that stretch of road?

Mr. Prescott: The important question is why the previous Administration did not meet the right hon. Lady's demands for the road programme. We have stated our road programme and invested in the core route network, and the regional road structure is being determined with the local and regional authorities.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that proposals to reduce the cost of car travel, increase speed limits, get rid of traffic calming and allow continuous left-hand turning at traffic lights in cities would not reduce congestion, but cause chaos on the roads and death?

Mr. Prescott: Yes. The House has debated the Opposition's proposals on those matters. We believe that we have a much more sensible proposal—the integrated policy identified in the transport White Paper.

Mr. John Redwood: I welcome and congratulate the new Ministers, and it is a great privilege to have the Minister for Housing and Planning with us—so recently returned from his serious campaign for the London mayoralty and sparing time from the lost cause of helping the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
Does the Secretary of State realise that he has created standstill Britain? Does he recognise that it was a great Labour lie to say that public transport would be better under Labour? Will he now take up our ideas for a commonsense revolution in transport—something that people outside this House desperately want—so that main roads can be unclogged to reduce danger to children and others prone to accidents? Will he substitute for his disintegrating transport policy our practical proposals for better train and bus services, a Londoners' tube and getting Britain on the move again?

Mr. Prescott: It is a bit much for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that we somehow moved from a perfect situation to a standstill. We inherited massive costs and congestion in all our transport systems. The previous Government invested £70 billion in the roads programme while undermining public transport, and that simply increased the number of cars per mile from 70 to 100 after 18 years of Tory Government. On any assessment, there needs to be a change in policy. Rural transport investment has now increased, with 1,800 new services. The number of passengers has increased by between 30 and 50 per cent., with more people travelling on the trains and other forms of public transport. That is the first indication in the past two years that we have a better system and that people are beginning to use their cars less and public transport more.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I am sure that, in drawing up measures to tackle road congestion, my right hon. Friend will also look at a strategy to tackle parking problems in urban areas. In doing so, will he take into account the concern that has been expressed about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency supplying private wheel clamping companies with the names and addresses of drivers from photographs of registration numbers? Will he assure me that until those companies, some of which adopt dubious tactics, are properly regulated, the DVLA will not continue with such practices?

Mr. Prescott: I am concerned about that; I shall have it investigated immediately and write to my hon. Friend about it.

Railtrack (Oxford)

Dr. Evan Harris: What representations he has received about permitted development rights for Railtrack in Oxford; and if he will make a statement. [94210]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have received representations from more than 300 people concerning Railtrack's permitted development rights in Oxford. The Secretary of State has considered all the representations carefully and informed the parties of his decision not to approve the direction to remove Railtrack's permitted development rights at Hinksey sidings in Oxford.

Dr. Harris: Does the Minister understand how shocked my constituents in South Hinksey and residents of south Oxford are that he should give the go-ahead for Railtrack to continue with that virtual quarry in green-belt land outside Oxford? In the week after health and safety responsibilities were removed from Railtrack—belatedly but rightly—how can he justify giving Railtrack a blank cheque to use permitted development rights to despoil green-belt areas? Is it not time that permitted development rights inherited from British Rail in the public sector were removed from privatised industries, which are making vast profits at the expense of spending on environmental schemes?

Mr. Raynsford: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman expresses surprise about the decision, because he knows that we consulted at considerable length. We gave several opportunities for further representations and explored the many legal complexities. He knows that Oxfordshire county council's case that this was a "virtual quarry" did not have legal force. It is because the article 4 direction could not be effective—we had clear legal guidance on that—that we did not approve it. There is no point in approving something that would be ineffective—only Liberal Democrats suggest that.

Coastal Towns (Regeneration)

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What support he plans to give to the regeneration of coastal towns. [94211]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We are working with the relevant national, regional and local bodies to identify and address the problems faced by coastal towns. Today, I placed in the Libraries of the House a list of the areas that include coastal towns that received funding under the fifth round of the single regeneration budget, and a list of coastal towns that are included on the proposed European structural funds map. As my hon. Friend knows, it was this Government who included coastal towns for the first time as a specific priority in SRB round 5.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate her on her appointment to the Front Bench.
People in my constituency are delighted that, this summer, the Government awarded the coastal town of Lowestoft assisted area status and European objective 2


designation. We are already in receipt of single regeneration budget money, and this new status will give a huge boost to the regeneration projects. Has my hon. Friend noticed that almost all the 20 travel-to-work areas with the highest unemployment in England are coastal towns? In view of that, would she consider including in the forthcoming urban White Paper a special section on coastal towns, so that the problems faced by those communities can be addressed by an overarching Government policy?

Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I pay tribute to him for what he has done to raise awareness of the needs of coastal towns. The urban and rural White Papers will mark an important step in our commitment to dealing with issues that affect competitiveness and quality of life in towns, cities and rural areas. In developing both those White Papers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to ensure that different areas have a place in those wider strategies. We recognise that coastal towns have specific needs, which will be addressed in the White Papers.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I join the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) in welcoming the Minister to her new position. Does she appreciate that, in many coastal towns, considerable investment in coastal defences is required to enable realistic regeneration? Will she join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of the flooding in the past few days, especially in Sussex? Will she give a clear commitment to providing the funding needed by the Environment Agency and others to upgrade and update coastal defences along our coasts?

Ms Hughes: I am pleased to acknowledge the important work of local authorities in response to the flooding, and I am sure that they will make every effort to meet the needs of their local communities. The hon. Gentleman will know that an element in the standard spending assessment takes care of coastal defences. However, I am well aware of the problems that those communities are facing, and they may want to talk to us about larger measures needed in response.
In their strategies, regional development agencies and regional bodies will consider the overall need to strengthen defences. It is worth noting that the Tories have set their face against that important regional mechanism for identifying priorities.

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Colin Burgon: What plans he has for increasing the involvement of tenants in the management of local authority housing. [94213]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We are increasing the opportunities for local authority tenants to be involved in the management of their homes by introducing tenant participation compacts in all councils from April next year. We are also broadening our programme of grants to promote and develop greater participation.

Mr. Burgon: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the Government are considering Leeds city council's bid for a public-private partnership housing

pathfinder scheme, which covers Swarcliffe in my constituency. The involvement of tenants and residents in the drawing up of the community plan has been central, and Whinmoor councillors and I remain committed to further extending local people's involvement as that is crucial to the regeneration of the area. Will the Minister take my remarks as discreet lobbying on this matter on behalf of my Swarcliffe constituents?

Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's involvement in the preparation of the proposed Leeds private finance initiative pathfinder scheme. He has been diligent in talking to his constituents and ensuring that there is effective communication between them and the city council, so that there will be full participation in the development of the proposals. He must accept, however, that we have to give further consideration to these and other proposals.

Mr. Tony Baldry: A legitimate concern for tenants in housing management is the length of the housing waiting list and how long it takes tenants and others to be rehoused. Given the Government's complete failure to control economic migrants, it now seems that such migrants will be dispersed around the country. According to an answer given to me yesterday by the Home Office, such dispersal may be compulsory. Will those economic migrants be described as statutorily homeless under the homelessness legislation? What will their status be in relation to those on the housing waiting list and local authority tenants?

Mr. Raynsford: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to asylum seekers. He will know that the Government have taken steps to try to define proper procedures for dealing humanely and properly with asylum applications, rather than continuing with the chaos that we inherited. He will also know that we inherited a situation in which housing provision had been slashed during the last years of the Conservative Government, leading to a substantial shortfall in the number of homes available for letting. He will know that such a position takes time to put right. We are increasing investment and implementing a range of measures to improve housing prospects, but the damage caused by 18 years of Tory Government is very serious.

Mr. David Lepper: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the potential role of housing co-operatives in the management of current local authority housing stock, and in the provision of good, well-managed social housing generally? What discussions is he having with the Housing Corporation on the possible easing of both the administrative and the financial regulations to allow better development of housing co-operatives?

Mr. Raynsford: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's views on the importance of tenant participation measures, including housing co-operatives. During the past fortnight, I have engaged in discussions with representatives of both the National Housing Federation and the Housing Corporation about how we can extend opportunities for such participation. I visited a particularly impressive tenant co-operative scheme in Birmingham, which was delivering very high standards of housing management and great


tenant satisfaction. There is no doubt that allowing tenants more opportunities to exercise effective control over their homes is one of the keys to better housing management, and we are keen to promote it.

New London Road, Chelmsford

Mr. Simon Burns: How much money his Department is making available to install a bus lane on the New London road in Chelmsford as part of the integrated transport policy. [R][94215]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Chelmsford transport package was accepted for the first time, and by this Government, in 1999–2000, with an allocation of £575,000. It is for Essex county council to decide which scheme to carry out, but positive measures to improve bus services are at the core of the package.

Mr. Burns: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. The people of Old Moulsham in Chelmsford, however, will not thank him for his Government's largesse in introducing a scheme such as that proposed by the local authority.
Is the Minister aware that there has, in effect, been a referendum on the matter? In a by-election last month, the Conservatives captured that part of Chelmsford, fighting the by-election on the basis of opposition to the scheme. Given that the opposition is not to encouraging more people to use public transport, but is based on a belief that, in that part of Chelmsford, the scheme will not bring a single person into the public transport system, would it not be common sense for the Government to look again at value for money, and consider whether it is worth spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a scheme that will not in any way enhance use of public transport?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, and I hear what he says about the proposed New London road bus scheme. It is clear, however, that both his own town of Chelmsford and Essex county council have identified improved bus services as the best solution to the problem of the town's rapid growth. My Department is simply responding to local judgment. If he still has problems with the proposal, it is for him to exercise his well-known powers of persuasion with the local transport authorities.

Regional Bodies

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What estimate he has made of the annual costs of (a) the regional development agencies and (b) English regional assemblies. [94216]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Regional development agencies have more than £800 million to spend each year, which includes £62 million for administration. The costs of the voluntary regional chambers—some of which call

themselves regional assemblies—are a matter for their members, but we would expect the costs of their role in relation to the RDAs to be modest.

Mr. Robathan: During the past seven and a half years, not one constituent has expressed any support for the idea of RDAs or regional assemblies. I should be interested to hear whether people flock to the Minister's door to tell her what a good idea they are.
Will the Minister confirm that 85 per cent. of the budgets to which she referred had already been allocated to projects before the agencies came into being? Will she also confirm that more than £1 million is spent on paying unelected politicians to do a job on those bodies taking up two days a month, and that a great deal of the remaining 15 per cent. of the money is spent on trying to create artificial and manufactured support for bodies for which there is no genuine support?

Ms Armstrong: This morning, the RDAs presented their regional strategies. Those strategies have been consulted on very widely. Indeed, I am confident that residents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been involved in the consultations. Business people have been, too. It may have missed his notice that the chairs of the RDAs are all from the business world and will resent being called amateur politicians by him. He says that there is no support for RDAs. I remind him that they were in our manifesto and that we got rather a lot of support for that manifesto.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend look at the funding that is available to the East of England development agency? Will she at the same time try to ensure a fairer allocation of funding than that bequeathed to the east of England by the previous Government?

Ms Armstrong: As I said, today we received regional strategies from the RDAs. They will identify the way forward in each region to achieve economic prosperity. That will mean that they are able both to increase the opportunities of people in the region and to contribute to the nation's prosperity.
I know that the eastern region has spent much time and effort consulting widely and that it will be responsible, with other RDAs, for administering SRB 5; we are consulting with them on the future of SRB 6. I hear what my hon. Friend says about funding for her region. All hon. Members consistently press the case for their regions, but it seems that that has gone by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Trunk Road Network

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on progress made in improving the trunk road network. [94217]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government inherited a trunk road system that was in the worst condition of maintenance since records


first began. That is why we have made maintenance our first priority and provided the Highways Agency with the resources that are necessary to maintain its roads properly.
We have increased the funding that is available for measures to make better use of existing roads. In place of the unachievable wish list of road schemes that we inherited from the previous Government, we have established a clear timetable for taking forward the targeted programme of improvements, so that all 37 schemes will start within the next seven years. The net result will be a safer trunk road network.

Mr. Winterton: The Minister will know that his Government have slimmed down the road programme from 140 to 37, but that is not the point that I want to register with him. Does he accept that the opening in the relatively near future of the second runway at Manchester international airport and the holding of the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 will generate a massive increase in traffic from all areas, particularly the south and east of Greater Manchester?
Does the Minister therefore accept that the Poynton bypass and Manchester airport link roads are essential to the infrastructure of that important part of the north-west and of Cheshire, and that he must ensure that, when the current study is undertaken, the views that will, I believe, be expressed in support of the roads will be supported and money will be made available? Public transport is not going to be the answer. The Manchester airport link roads will make available—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Winterton: A line for the Metrolink—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He should come to order when I ask him to do so.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has again demonstrated his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituency, and I certainly understand his concern in the matter. However, when the Government considered as part of the roads review the A555 eastern link road and the A523 Poynton bypass—to which he alluded—we found that the schemes were not sufficiently advanced to be included in the targeted improvements programme. Nevertheless, both schemes will form part of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, and I hope that he will be somewhat reassured to learn that invitations to tender for the study have now been sent out. It is envisaged that consultants will be appointed shortly, and the study will be completed in spring 2001, at which point we shall give it full consideration.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I do not know why Opposition Members are wittering on about the roads programme, because my constituents are delighted that, after 30 years of failure, the A650 Bingley relief road has, at last, been given the go ahead. Will the Minister consider some advanced work schemes, so that we might complete and open the Bingley relief road as soon as possible?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend, too, is always a passionate advocate of his constituency; it has already enjoyed

considerable success on that matter, on which I congratulate him. The Government shall, of course, consider a raft of road improvements—that is part of the local transport planning process—and we shall certainly eventually examine the Bingley proposals.

Mr. John M. Taylor: What about the Birmingham northern relief road?

Madam Speaker: That was a very good question.

Mr. Hill: It is on its way.

Madam Speaker: And that was a very good answer.

Air Traffic Control

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to ensure that air traffic control can cope with the forecast increase in flights into and from the United Kingdom. [94218]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government are committed to providing the United Kingdom with a safe, modern and efficient air traffic control system for the future. Through our innovative public-private partnership proposals, the Government will introduce a strategic partner to National Air Traffic Services to secure essential core capital investment, which will be about £1 billion in the next 10 years and will be used to maintain existing safety and efficiency levels against predicted traffic increases.

Mr. Prentice: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box; he is an inspired choice. However, he will know that in 1997, the Department forecast that, between now and 2015, aeroplane traffic in and out of the United Kingdom will grow by 4.5 per cent. annually. Given such a momentous increase in air traffic, is it not dicing with death to privatise air traffic control? Have not air traffic controllers repudiated privatisation, as has the airline industry? So far as I can gather, Labour party members also have repudiated privatisation—or did we get it wrong in 1996, when we told the Conservatives that our air was not for sale?

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I only hope that I continue to justify his confidence. He was quite right to say that there will be a large increase in air traffic, making it all the more essential that we raise the £1 billion necessary to invest in state of the art technology. His fears about safety are completely unfounded. We are not proposing to put safety in the private sector: safety will remain with the public sector. The one thing that we shall do—it will enhance safety, rather than undermine it—is to separate regulation from operations, as that is not the case now.

Miss Anne McIntosh: May I add my congratulations to the Minister on his new position? I also congratulate the Government on their plans to proceed with the public-private partnership for NATS. Following his holding reply to my question last week, when might the Minister be minded to reply to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional


Affairs report on aviation safety? Does the Minister agree that the air safety framework that he has described to the House provides a model that could be followed by the railway sector?

Mr. Mullin: The reply to the Select Committee will be coming shortly.

Mr. George Stevenson: May I too welcome my hon. Friend to his position? I recognise entirely the need for investment—there is no question about that—but will he recall the Select Committee's recommendations, which showed concern about the Government's proposals for NATS? The report suggested alternatives which would not only produce the required investment, but would follow proven track records from other parts of the world.

Mr. Mullin: We take what the Select Committee says extremely seriously, and that is why we adopted its proposals on separating safety regulation from operations. We have looked at the other models available, and we are satisfied that the public-private partnership as proposed is the best one. It will give access to the capital that we need, and access to some badly needed private sector project management skills. That is not a small consideration. Finally, it will generate some proceeds which can be invested in other transport projects.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: We too welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position, and we are delighted to be reminded by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that, before the election, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) proudly declared that our air was not for sale. Although Labour told the country one thing before the election, once in power it does another thing, announcing in July this year that our air will indeed be for sale.
Now that the right hon. Member for Oxford, East is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will the Government confirm today that it is still their intention to privatise National Air Traffic Services? Is it still the intention of the Labour Government that foreign interests and foreign Governments will be able to buy powerful stakes in Britain's airways, with the purchase of a minority of shares?

Mr. Mullin: No consideration has yet been given to the likely bidders, which will be considered carefully when the bids come in. We are not proposing privatisation of the sort that we saw under the Conservative Government, in which the main public assets were simply looted. We are proposing a genuine partnership that will give us the best of what the private and public sectors have to offer.

Mr. Michael Connarty: May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench? But those who have watched the world cup will realise when someone has been given a suicide pass, as seems to have been given to my hon. Friend with the air traffic control remit. He spoke earlier about private sector project management. Does he share the concern of some who have quizzed those in the private sector who are involved in designing the new system, as there seem to be problems in specifications from the private sector? Is there not

concern that the second-line safety—that is, the Prestwick second control centre—now seems to be up for grabs, and may be written out of the system? Can we have an assurance that there will still be a two-centre control system for air traffic control, including Prestwick in Scotland?

Mr. Mullin: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will be two centres, one of which will be at Prestwick.

London Underground

Mr. John Wilkinson: When he expects Transport for London to assume responsibility for the underground. [94219]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Transport for London will be established in July 2000 under the control of the mayor. It will assume responsibility for the underground following implementation of the public-private partnership.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not Labour keener on having a crony as its candidate for mayor than on implementing its manifesto promise to have Transport for London operational, including the London underground operating under a public-private partnership? The Government should admit that they have failed Londoners, who had an appalling summer of chaos. The taxpayer is having to pick up the tab to the tune of £500 million of unanticipated Treasury expenditure as a result of that catastrophic failure.

Mr. Prescott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, as he failed in his bid to be the Tory candidate for mayor. The London transport system will be improved by our £7 billion investment, not in a public-private partnership in the sense that he refers to, but in a publicly owned, publicly accountable facility. The assets will be developed and improved by private capital, but they will all be returned to the public sector. For the first time, London's transport system will have desperately needed sustained planning and resource investment.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I was on a Central line train that was held up because somebody was taken ill on the train behind us? It was decided to hold up the trains in front to pace the rate at which they went through stations. Is it not absurd that people are held up in hot, sweltering, overcrowded conditions because of such incidents? Is it not time that we had democratic accountability for London transport and the underground system; and is it not good news that the Labour Government are bringing about such accountability by establishing a mayor and elected authority for London?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are returning London transport and accountability to Londoners after consultation and a referendum, even though the Tories took accountability off Londoners with no consultation.

Mr. John Randall: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in pressing for the Central line to be


extended as far as Uxbridge? That could be done at relatively little cost and would be a great benefit to many in west London—not to mention the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).

Mr. Prescott: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is a lot easier said than done. That was one of the first projects that I looked at when I came to office. I was advised against investing in it and concentrated instead on the main project of finding £7 billion to re-equip our London underground system.

Mr. John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend still intend to hand over responsibility for the sub-surface tube lines to Railtrack? If so, why?

Mr. Prescott: We have made it clear that Railtrack can make a bid for the sub-surface lines so that we can achieve the integration that we want. We have to wait until the spring to see whether we can reach an agreement, but the intention is to integrate the national rail service with the underground. That integration is part of the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I fought on. We intend to implement that policy.

Drivers (Drug Tests)

Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on drug-testing for drivers. [94221]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): It is already an offence to drive while unfit through medicinal or illicit drugs, but the problem for the police is to recognise that a driver is drug-impaired. We are working with the police and the Home Office on the development of techniques and screening devices so that the law can be enforced effectively.

Mrs. Winterton: The Minister will be aware of the growing number of fatal accidents blamed on drivers who have taken a cocktail of hard drugs. Does he believe that the police should be given the same powers to tackle drug driving as they have to deal with drink driving? Does he further believe that it is a matter of urgency that a drugsalyser test should be developed to act as a deterrent for those who might be tempted to drive while under the influence of drugs?

Mr. Mullin: The hon. Lady makes an important point. There has been a large increase in the number of fatalities caused by people who have taken illicit—or in some cases medicinal—drugs. The problem is that we have to develop the technology to enable the misuse of drugs to be detected. The technology thus far is not sufficiently reliable. Work is under way and we are hopeful that the technology will be better in the fairly near future. We shall not shrink from legislating at that point, but we must develop the technology first.

Dr. Brian Iddon: This is a difficult area, is it not? For example, will we prosecute drivers taking prescription drugs that affect the central nervous system? Bearing in mind the fact that cannabis can be detected in the body for up to 30 days after

someone has smoked a spliff, will the charge against a person who has smoked only one spliff be possession, or driving under the influence?

Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend is more conversant with the terminology than I am, but he is right, in that there are one or two other serious difficulties as well as the problems with the technology. The offence will have to be driving while impaired through drugs, and we shall have to be able to demonstrate that before a court of law. There are a couple of complex issues; one is the technology, and my hon. Friend has mentioned the other—but we are on the case.

Rail Freight

Dr. Doug Naysmith: What recent discussions he has had with Railtrack on the movement of freight by rail. [94222]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Following the tragic accident at Ladbroke Grove, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Minister for Transport have had several discussions with Railtrack, and in this context have also met the freight operators EWS and Freightliner. Previously, on 14 September, the Minister for Transport had a meeting with the chief executive of Railtrack, at which rail freight was briefly discussed.

Dr. Naysmith: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench—a much merited promotion—and thank him for the information that he has given. Does he agree that, given the increase in rail traffic, especially rail freight, railway land should be retained for railway development? What are the Government doing to promote that idea?

Mr. Hill: I am overwhelmed by the accolade bestowed on me by my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with the thrust of his remarks. That is why our new draft PPG13, published on 18 October, draws particular attention to the need to protect sites and routes that could be critical in developing infrastructure, so as to widen choices both for passengers and those who dispatch freight. It is also why we have required the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, in managing the British Rail property portfolio, to give priority to transport users.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I add my congratulations to the Minister on his well deserved elevation to the Front Bench. Will he carefully consider the security aspects of the misuse of freight facilities elsewhere in Europe? He may be aware that when the all-party rail freight group, led by Lord Berkeley, visited freight facilities in northern Italy, members of the group from all parties were shocked at the lack of security. He will certainly know that there is grave concern about the misuse of—welcome—freight facilities for the purpose of illegal immigration. Will he carefully consider the report produced by his noble Friend on the rail freight group visit?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and I undertake not only to make my own inquiries into the matter, but to write to him with full details of our arrangements in connection with it.

Gillian Merron: May I advise the Minister that plans to increase the amount of rail freight travelling through Lincoln's already busy high street is causing considerable concern about how that can best be managed under existing arrangements, because new arrangements need to be made? Can he assist my constituents by looking into a practical solution, so that a useful way forward can be found?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue extremely pertinent to her constituency, but heretofore unfamiliar to me. The question she asks is important in the light of the Government's clear commitment to, and outstanding record of, developing rail freight facilities. Opposition Members have been very friendly to me so far, so I do not want to create too much hurt and pain on the Opposition Benches, but I must point out that in 1995–96, under the previous Administration, the total spend on rail freight facilities and rail freight grants was £4 million. In the past two years, under the Labour Government, it has been £29 million and we expect it to increase. Indeed, in recent weeks, the two largest ever rail freight facility grants have been given out by this Government.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Would the Minister agree that in some areas it is lack of track capacity that is the single biggest factor inhibiting the growth of rail freight, such as on the Nith valley line which takes coal from the Ayrshire coalfield to the English power stations? What pressure will he apply to Railtrack to invest in such facilities?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and he is right. That is why we have made the development of a rail freight strategy a major priority for the Strategic Rail Authority.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Would my hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government's proposals for freight and for increased passenger use of the railways may lead to a problem in the medium term in allocating freight slots, especially near my constituency between Southampton north and south, and on the east and west lines from London to the west country? Can he give me an assurance that he is actively encouraging Railtrack to develop new rail facilities for freight, including track and new junctions?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and drawing our attention specifically to the situation in his locality. He is right. In the past two years, we have seen a 14 per cent. growth in freight tonne/kilometres on our railways, which is a terrific success. However, success does bring its problems and it will be a major responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority to examine the issues of track capacity and rail freight facilities for the future.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join those who have welcomed the Minister to the Front Bench. Does he

agree that the problem of increasing freight and passengers on the railways is one of capacity and the need to manage safety? I welcome the decision that the Government made in the summer approving the installation as quickly as possible of the train protection warning system, and the outcome of yesterday's safety summit. However, given that collisions such as the one at Southall would not be prevented by the TPWS, what did the Government do when they were first notified about the 25 per cent. increase in serious signals-passed-at-danger incidents in August, which was a dramatic deterioration in safety on the railway by any standards?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. He raises an important issue, but the answer is that the Government had instituted an inquiry into the increase in signals passed at danger—or SPADs—12 months before the Ladbroke Grove disaster. It is on the basis of the findings of that report that the Government are now engaged in urgent action to address the issue of rail safety.

Private Rentals

Mr. Graham Stringer: What plans he has to improve the workings of the private rental sector of the housing market. [94223]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have a number of initiatives already in hand. We are committed to mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation. We are reviewing fitness standards and piloting a voluntary rent deposit dispute resolution scheme. In addition, we support the national approved letting scheme for letting agents. We will set out our full conclusions on the future of the private rented sector in our forthcoming housing Green Paper.

Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that in my constituency and many other northern cities the market in houses on terraced streets built before the first world war is in disarray? Disreputable private landlords are bringing in anti-social, sometimes criminal, tenants on the back of housing benefit and driving decent people out. That has led to whole rows of terraced houses standing empty. Does he agree that one of the answers to that problem is to regulate private landlords?

Mr. Raynsford: I agree that there is a problem in several cities with abandonment of properties; it has been possible for certain elements to buy cheaply properties that are then unscrupulously exploited, as are the tenants who occupy them. That is why the Government commissioned a specific report from policy action team 7 to look into the social exclusion agenda and problems of unpopular housing. That report, which we warmly welcomed a few weeks ago, set out a number of interesting conclusions about action that can be taken.
I do not believe that a registration scheme for all private sector housing would necessarily achieve my hon. Friend's objectives. Manchester, which is his council, tried to introduce an accreditation scheme for rented housing, but it did not prove entirely successful. There are serious problems in securing the adherence of landlords to letting and, indeed, in identifying all the landlords in existence,


which make it difficult for bureaucratic schemes of that nature to achieve their purpose. It is right to focus on properties with the highest risk, and we see HMOs as being in that category, which is why we are proceeding with our licensing scheme for multi-occupied houses.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Would the Minister confirm that in the past 10 years the number of households renting from private landlords has increased by perhaps 25 per cent.—an increase from roughly 1.75 million to well over 2 million? Does he agree that that has come about by relaxing regulations that control private landlords where that could be done sensibly? The one thing that would reverse that trend would be the imposition of excessive and unnecessary regulation now.

Mr. Raynsford: I agree that we do not want unnecessary and excessive regulation. There should be controls to deal with properties that are in the worst condition, where people's lives are put at risk by unscrupulous landlords. That is why we are licensing multi-occupied houses. We also want to encourage reputable landlords to come into the market—we have said so repeatedly and we will continue to do so. The overall pattern is one in which the private rented sector has stabilised. The number of lettings in the sector is not increasing and is below the 1979 level. We are however keen to see an improvement in the responsible side of the market, while we bear down on the more disreputable parts of it.

Ms Margaret Moran: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the housing benefit going to private sector landlords has tripled since 1989–90 while lettings have increased by only 11 per cent. in the same period. Given the amount of public sector investment going to private landlords, does he agree that it is essential that we get value for money by tackling the enormous amounts of disrepair in the sector, so that private tenants can enjoy decent quality accommodation in return for the housing benefit investment that the Government are giving private landlords?

Mr. Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend that tackling the problems of disrepair is important. That is why we are reviewing fitness standards, as I said. I also agree that we need to ensure value for money. That will be a fundamental issue to be tackled in our forthcoming housing Green Paper.

New Forest

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement regarding his plans for national park status for the New Forest. [94224]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime

Minister announced on 29 September that he has asked the Countryside Agency to consider designating the New Forest as a national park. The agency will work closely with my Department, local authorities, the members of the New Forest committee and a whole range of local and national interests in reviewing the options.

Mr. Swayne: The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State's announcement was greeted with disappointment and dismay by the New Forest committee, the verderers, the commoners, the district council and the county councillors. Why did the Minister reject the clearly expressed preference of what was then the Countryside Commission, now the agency?

Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend's announcement has been widely welcomed, including by local interests. The former Countryside Commission recommended tailor-made legislation, that is true. There is a serious drawback, however, which is the lack of parliamentary time. Primary legislation would be required and there is a lack of early parliamentary time. The previous Government repeatedly promised to introduce legislation, but they never did; we are doing so and we believe that there is scope for a national park authority to do an excellent job for the New Forest, just as the park authorities are doing for many other parts of the country.

Mr. Damian Green: It is clear, from the Minister's reply, that his assurance yesterday to the Countryside Alliance that he was in listening mode did not apply to people living near the New Forest. Will he confirm that he will need to repeal three Acts of Parliament before a national park can have full management powers? Will he say when those Acts will be repealed? Without that commitment, the House will think, rightly, that the announcement is merely another press release with no substance—another great Labour lie.

Mr. Meacher: There has been enormous discussion of this matter. It was discussed for many years under the previous Government, but the problem was that that they did not act. We are very conscious of the desire of the great majority of local interests for action on this issue. The powers of the Forestry Commission and the verderers will not be affected by the creation of a national park, and the primary New Forest legislation already in place will not be affected. However, because we are listening to what is being said, we have asked the Countryside Agency to examine how the views of the Forestry Commission, English Nature and the verderers can be reflected in national park structures, especially in terms of membership structures and the creation of committees.
We are listening and we shall continue to do so. There will not be a national park until this matter has been considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If objections are raised, it is for him to decide whether to call a public inquiry.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to raise a point that I put to you privately. It concerns an article that appears in The Guardian today under the name of Michael White, from which I shall quote two extracts. It begins:
MPs are canvassing for a new speaker of the Commons to succeed Betty Boothroyd amid frustration among ministers at her determination to resist what she sees as the government's encroachment on the rights of Parliament.
It goes on to state that
it is widely understood that many ministers will be glad to see the back of their assertive … colleague, hoping to replace her with a more emollient opposition MP.
I am not concerned with the source of the leak. It is an assumption of Governments that all Ministers and their press officers speak with the authority of the Prime Minister. Nor am I concerned with your position, Madam Speaker, because you were elected unanimously by the House, and I know of no Speaker who has enjoyed so much support. However, I am concerned with the implication that the ability to appoint the Speaker of the House of Commons lies within the patronage of the Prime Minister, when in reality that power belongs to the House.
A sort of parallel might be drawn with the events of 4 January 1642, when Charles I tried to arrest the five Members. Today, the spin doctors in the Press Gallery are trying to remove the Speaker, but the same principle is at stake. It is very important that hon. Members should defend the House, because the legislature is not a quango of the Executive.
I very much hope, Madam Speaker, that you will use your discretion to find an opportunity to allow the role of the Executive vis-à-vis the House of Commons to be properly debated. I do not ask for a considered judgment now, but I feel very strongly that, unless it asserts itself, the House will virtually disappear as a factor in our political society.

Madam Speaker: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the House. However, he will know—probably rather better than I—that, when the time comes, the House asserts its independence in electing its Speaker. I have great faith that it will do that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I recall the circumstances surrounding the election of your predecessor, Lord Weatherill. Is there not something to be said for the House of Commons having a Speaker whom the Prime Minister of the day does not want?

Madam Speaker: As Eric Morecambe used to say, "There's no answer to that."

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, you rightly rebuked me mildly for not resuming my seat. May I apologise unreservedly, but also offer the explanation that my eyes were firmly focused on the Government Front Bench and the Minister and that my hearing was impaired by the noise from the Labour Benches? I am sorry that I did not resume my seat more quickly.

Madam Speaker: Questions are sometimes rather longer than I want them to be.

BILL PRESENTED

ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING TARGETS

Joan Ruddock, supported by Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mrs. Betty Williams, presented a Bill to make provision regarding the setting and achievement of targets for organic farming and food consumption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 5 November 1999, and to be printed [Bill 153].

Civil Registration (Access to Records)

Mr. Keith Darvill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to access to registers of births, marriages and deaths; and for connected purposes.
The main purpose of the Bill is to provide improved public access to records of civil registration—those of births, marriages and deaths. The Bill will give clarity to sections of the Marriage Act 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which prevent information from being obtained unless certificates are purchased. The proposals, which have widespread support both in and outside the House, attempt to address defects in the arrangements as well as clarifying the law.
The 1949 and 1953 Acts do not prohibit access to records. They authorise the issue of certified copies of birth, marriage and death certificates. However, those seeking information may look only at the index of records. To receive the information that they require, they must pay the unnecessary and exorbitant sum of £6.50 for a certificate, which, in many cases, the researcher does not need. Many of those researching information about ancestors in order to prepare a family tree or family history find the fee for certificates and the inability to browse erect unnecessary and expensive barriers.
The Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages has long recognised that the present arrangements are unnecessarily restrictive. Demands by members of the public to remedy the difficulties are growing. Many hon. Members will have received representations from constituents who read Family Tree Magazine, or who are members of the Society of Genealogists or one of the many family history societies around the country.
My Bill will provide a right to browse records, reducing the frustration of genealogists and other researchers who can obtain information only through certified copies of entries, and must purchase them without knowing what information they contain. Nor can copies be returned for a refund if they are of no use. The main aim of the Bill is to eliminate the need for researchers to conduct a search through the speculative purchase of certificates and to replace it with a right to examine records so that they may select information of interest to them.
The proposal relates to older records. The Bill will contain a provision opening historic records—those of 75 years or older—to public view. The 1990 White Paper "Registration: Proposal for Change" specified that period, considering it to be a reasonable compromise. That period also gained the greatest measure of support—almost half—among those who responded to the consultation paper to the Green Paper that preceded that document.
For recent records, the existing system will remain. Members of the public may still obtain information through the purchase of copies of specified items. This important distinction between recent and historic records will be drawn because of concern that the right to look up events—especially births—in public indexes, and to

purchase copies of the records, offers scope for certificates to be used too readily for the creation of false identities for purposes of personation and fraud.
Those who have campaigned for a change in the law recognise that a balance must be struck between facilitating worthwhile research into family histories—an interest that grows every year—and the need to reduce the possibility of abuse. With that balance in mind, it is right to provide access to information but alternative arrangements for the purchase of certificates of recent events, which provides an approach for the prevention of personation and fraud.
I recognise that the previous Government intended to remedy the defects in the system, but they never found the parliamentary time to fulfil their good intentions. I am also heartened that this Government intend to make change and modernise the arrangements. "Supporting Families", the consultation document published last year, proposed that there should be a review of the civil registration system in England and Wales. The then Economic Secretary acknowledged that the Victorian legislation on which the civil registration service is based places too many restrictions on the type and extent of service and hinders the use of modern technology to meet the needs of a changing society.
I understand that the aim of the review was to consider the existing operational framework of civil registration and to set out options for its future development, including access to registration records. The final phase of the review has been completed, with the publication on 8 September of a public consultation document "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service".
Chapter 4 of the consultation paper is devoted to improving service delivery through better access to records. It acknowledges that the present paper-based system cannot be sustained and suggests that technology holds the key to solving problems of storage, retention and retrieval of future records. I welcome the recognition that technology will play an important role in access, and that is why my Bill will provide for computer-based records to be retained and allow access to records by way of information communication technology.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to move this motion under Standing Order 23 and I trust that the House is persuaded of the need for change in this area of the law, a change that will benefit a large number of people throughout England and Wales and many who live in other parts of the world whose ancestors were born and lived in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Darvill, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, Mr. David Lidington and Mr. Bob Russell.

CIVIL REGISTRATION (ACCESS TO RECORDS)

Mr. Keith Darvill accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to access to registers of births, marriages and deaths; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 154].

Opposition Day

Home Office Issues

Madam Speaker: I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches for Back Benchers throughout debates on the next two motions.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House notes the Government's incompetent handling and mismanagement of Home Office issues in general; further notes that the number of police officers in England and Wales has fallen by more than 1,000 since the General Election; further notes that the Home Secretary's recent announcement on police recruits will mean another fall in the number of police officers in England and Wales; further notes the chaos caused by the Government in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the record numbers of asylum-seekers, many of them bogus, now arriving in the United Kingdom; further notes the recent revelations arising from the Mitrokhin Archive; and calls on the Government to increase police numbers, to improve the working of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, to reduce the numbers of bogus asylum-seekers arriving in the United Kingdom and to ensure that those who betray the United Kingdom to foreign powers are pursued with the utmost vigour.
The motion in the name of the Opposition calls to the attention of the House and that of a wider audience the long series of mismanagements, incompetence, inaccurate statistics and general mess over which the Home Secretary has presided since he took office in 1997. I have been extremely kind to the right hon. Gentleman in selecting only a few of the things that have gone wrong on which to make comment. There may be more on a later day, but today I simply wish to address four issues. The first is police numbers.
The Home Secretary made a very interesting statement in his Labour party conference speech, which he has since defended on the ground of technical accuracy. There is, of course, an enormous difference between technical accuracy and a picture that would be recognised by the outside world. When he had finished telling us that he was going to supply the money for "more" recruits, or an "additional" or an "extra"—whichever version one wants to take—5,000 police recruits, there was an assumption not only on the part of the press, media and public, but even the Police Federation, which after all understands these things, that that meant that he was pledging an extra 5,000 police officers.
I am sure that if those same bodies had decided that he was pledging 5,000 fewer police officers, the Home Secretary would have rushed to put them right. He would have rushed to say that they had got it all wrong, and that what he really meant was that there would be only 5,000 extra recruits. However, because they put a rather optimistic interpretation on what he said, he kept strangely silent—until today, when he gave an extremely fascinating explanation to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It was not only fascinating to listen to, but to watch, because the Home Secretary set out to rival Houdini.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, after all, he had got it completely wrong, and that, when he talked about 11,000 police recruits, he really meant that police forces

were planning to recruit not 11,000, but 15,000. Oddly enough, his representations to his own Treasury Ministers referred to 11,000—I do not know whether they will now ask for the money back, on the ground that they were misled. The Home Secretary and all independent bodies have said consistently that the recruiting plans actually meant 11,000 officers. Today, he said that that was all a mistake, and he blamed his officials for giving him the wrong information.
In the House, we cannot identify officials—but I am inclined to ask who they were. Were they, perhaps, the same officials who clean forgot to renew the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts? Were they the same officials who wrongly briefed the Home Secretary on his own Home Office figures when he gave a press conference on asylum? Were they the same officials who caused him, quite mistakenly, to give the Welsh Assembly powers over Welsh criminals? Were they the same officials who caused him to publish the names and addresses of witnesses in the Macpherson report? We do not know, but what we do know is that every time something goes wrong, this Home Secretary, who in his first speech to the House made a virtue of the fact that he would take responsibility for everything that happened in the Home Office, has, since then, quite consistently blamed his officials for every error that he has come up with.
However, for the sake of argument, let us accept that the figure of 15,000 is right. Will the Home Secretary now set out simply and clearly, and in terms that admit of no misinterpretation, whether his revised figures, given to the Select Committee today mean a net addition to the police force, in the lifetime of the Labour Government, of 5,000 officers? Do they, or do they not? Do they mean a net addition of 5,000 officers, even before 2003? I am being kind to him. Do they, or do they not? Do they even mean that, when the Government leave office, there will be more police officers than there are at present, or will there be extra or additional officers to those who are there at present? Alternatively, will the numbers be the same, or will they be fewer? Can the Home Secretary confirm that, according to the statement that he submitted to the Select Committee, the statisticians say that the new recruiting figures—on which he now relies to extricate himself from the hole that he dug for himself—
can only be based on fairly crude projections
and that they do not represent "sophisticated modelling".
The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled, so I will help him. Will he confirm that that was part of the statement on figures that he submitted today? In case he wants to come up with some technical argument about whether that formed the statement or the appendix, will he just tell us whether those words are true—are they crude projections? If there are to be more police officers by the time the Government leave office, how many more will there be? Will he take May 1997 as his baseline of comparison?
A generous observer of today's Select Committee hearing would have concluded that the Home Secretary was mired in muddle, but a more cynical observer would have noted that he was becoming enmeshed in a web of deceit. We might also ask the Prime Minister whether he wishes to come to the House and correct his statement that the right hon. Gentleman had painted an accurate picture in referring to 5,000 extra officers. I think that it is time for a retraction and probably an apology.
Before I leave the issue of police numbers, I must raise an associated question that will impact on recruiting. The 22 October issue of "Public Finance" reveals the cost of the new radio system that the police are obliged to implement; they have no choice in the matter. In case the Home Secretary is suffering from any confusion, it is called the public safety radiocommunications project. The publication cites the total cost of that project as £1.5 billion. Is that figure accurate? If it is, how far does the Home Secretary think that the mere £50 million that he announced in his conference speech will go towards funding that project?
If the police have to implement the radiocommunications project and must find the funding shortfall between £1.5 billion and £50 million, can the Home Secretary seriously tell the House that recruitment will not suffer? Does he accept the comments made to me by a chief constable and an assistant chief constable that, in light of the requirement to implement the new system, recruitment must suffer?

Mr. Christopher Leslie: On the subject of police expenditure, I am curious to know whether the right hon. Lady agrees with the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who criticised the Government's spending plans for policing—and everything else—as "reckless". Does the right hon. Lady agree with that assessment?

Miss Widdecombe: We have said consistently—as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor—that it is somewhat surprising that the Government should trumpet a 3 per cent. increase in police funding while demanding efficiency savings of 2 per cent., which means that some police forces are managing on a funding increase of less than 0.5 per cent.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We cannot have evasion on an issue that is absolutely central to the Opposition's credibility. Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question? The shadow Chancellor has criticised the Government's spending increases, including our £1.24 billion increase, as "reckless". Does the right hon. Lady share that view?

Miss Widdecombe: I will answer that question directly. However, I observe in passing that for the Home Secretary to accuse anyone on either side of the House of evasion is somewhat rich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall come to the point that the Home Secretary raised. He asked about the shadow Chancellor's attitude to police spending. My right hon. Friend has promised me that, when we return to Government, we will reverse the decline in police numbers. We will do that without smoke and mirrors, without blaming officials and without hiding behind chief constables. We will reverse the decline—that pledge from the future Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely specific. [Interruption.] I understand the agitation that is apparent on the Government Benches: it stems from embarrassment. They are the Government who came to office promising to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. They have delivered that

promise by reducing police numbers by more than 1,000 since 1997. The Home Secretary is not tough on crime; he is tough on the fighters of crime.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady has made what may or may not be an important statement. Can she give a clear answer to this question: if she has authority to say that the Tories would reverse the decline in police numbers were they returned to office, what number of police are they committed to and what figure has the shadow Chancellor committed to pay for them?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman says that my statement might or might not be important—how typical of the Liberals. Let us assume that it is important and I shall answer him directly: the commitment is that whatever overall number of police—no recruits, no this and that—remain to us when the Government leave office, we will make that up to the number that there were when we left office. That could hardly be clearer.
Returning to the radio project, I was asking the Home Secretary for his estimate of the cost. He tried to distract me from that point, but I will not be distracted. Is the project compulsory? How much will he give police forces? [Interruption.] We are back on the radio project; the right hon. Gentleman did not hear. Will he give police forces the sum of the cost? If not, does he accept that making up the shortfall must have an impact on recruitment? When I asked him the other day why he had not answered some of my questions, he said that I asked them too quickly. I do not intend to weary the House by repeating them, but I shall give them to him in writing during the succeeding debate so that he may be in no doubt at all about what I have asked him and so that we might get proper answers.
Before dealing with the other issues that we want to discuss, I have to comment on an aspect of policing that has caused widespread concern throughout the country and across the political spectrum: the scenes that we witnessed of policing during the visit of the President of China. The last time we witnessed such scenes was 1978, when Ceausescu visited this country. I have not seen such scenes since and, according to my research, there have not been any.
Were any suggestions—I shall not even call them instructions—made, either by the Home Office or the Foreign Office, in respect of keeping the Tibetan flag out of the sight of the Chinese President, or any other matters relating to the policing of demonstrations during the President's visit? As we have joined-up government, I am sure that the Home Secretary can answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) tabled such questions for answer yesterday. He received a denial from the right hon. Gentleman that his Department was involved in contacts with the police, but when I walked into the Chamber we had yet to receive any answer from the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. This morning, the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that he could not say whether his Department's officials had been involved, but he was kind enough to tell us that it was his view that there had been contacts between Foreign Office officials, Chinese embassy staff and the Metropolitan police. Is not


it rather curious that the Department for which he is responsible should not have had any involvement, although the Foreign Office did?

Miss Widdecombe: "Curious" is just too kind a word.
What we need from the right hon. Gentleman is a clear, unequivocal statement on whether the Government were involved in suggesting the nature of the policing which shocked the nation during the Chinese President's visit. I attach no blame whatever to the police, who have told me that many of their officers felt resentment at being required to police a demonstration in that way. Ordinary police officers are decent people, who want to uphold democracy and spend their time fighting crime, not suppressing peaceful demonstrations.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Home Secretary may be able to help us even more than we have just been given to understand. Does my right hon. Friend recall a statement in The Sunday Times, in which a senior member of the Metropolitan police was quoted as saying:
If the minutes of meetings between police and Foreign Office officials are made public, the Government is going to have egg on its face.
Can my right hon. Friend see any reason why the Home Secretary should not put this matter to rest now by publishing the minutes of those meetings?

Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to second the call for the Home Secretary to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: No, I should like to make some progress. I understand that Madam Speaker wants Back Benchers to have due time to speak in this debate.
I now come to the asylum issue. In this area, probably more than in any other, the Home Secretary is directly responsible for the shambles that has resulted. When he is challenged, he makes two excuses: first, that he inherited a deepening problem from us; and secondly, that it is all to do with international upheavals. On inheriting the problem from us, let us ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Government's figures—that in 1995 there were 43,965 asylum applications, and in 1996 there were 29,640. That fall was due to our asylum and immigration legislation and the fact that we were willing to take tough measures, on which he accused us of playing the race card—a shameful accusation. Does he now agree that, according to his own figures, he inherited a falling number of asylum applications?
What did the Home Secretary do then? I pay tribute to him for being consistent. Before he took office, he said that when Labour came to power it would abolish the list of safe countries of origin, and it did. That list enabled us to fast track unfounded asylum applications. He said that he would not implement our measures against illegal working, and he kept that up for two years before admitting, very quietly, that he was wrong.

Mr. Straw: The white list has not yet been replaced, but it will be replaced by a more effective procedure under the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Meanwhile, the list has

remained in place. If the right hon. Lady now objects to our replacing it, why was it that, in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House on proceedings of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, no Opposition Member spoke against our proposal to remove the white list—still less moved an amendment or voted against it?

Miss Widdecombe: More smoke and more mirrors. The position is straightforward. We introduced and put into statute what the Home Secretary misnames "the white list"—we never called it that. It was a list of safe countries of origin. He said that he would not implement it, and he made that statement not only in opposition but as soon as he came to office, thereby sending out a clear signal that he would not operate the list of safe countries of origin. That sent a signal to people coming from those countries that their applications would not be fast tracked and that they could once again play the system. It is as simple as that. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, it perhaps explains why the asylum system has been in such an unholy mess.
At the same time as the Home Secretary announced that he would not implement measures against illegal working and the list of safe countries of origin, he reversed several high profile deportation decisions that we had taken, proclaimed an amnesty for 20,000 applicants and removed the primary purpose rule elsewhere in the immigration system. The sum of those actions was to send out a clear message to the rest of the world that Britain was once again a soft touch on asylum. The right hon. Gentleman then turned round and tried to blame the record rises that he inflicted on this country on an Administration that had actually brought about a fall. Why cannot he admit responsibility, or will he now tell us that officials were to blame?

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Lady wants to refer to soft touches, will she explain why she authorised members of the other place to vote in favour of amendment No. 118 to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which would have the explicit effect of restoring social security cash benefits to those from whom she withdrew them in 1996, the cost of which in a full year would be £500 million?

Miss Widdecombe: Amendment No. 118 was moved by the Bishop of Southwark—on this occasion I pay tribute to him, although I do not always do so—and was supported by us, by the Liberal Democrats and by some of the Home Secretary's colleagues in the upper House. We were trying to assist the right hon. Gentleman, because he said that he would not implement the voucher system until he had the asylum system under control, and that he would turn round applications within six months. We decided to hold him to that promise. We are still in favour of the voucher system, but only when he has established the underlying systems that will make it work. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I did not get any enlightenment from the hon. Gentleman the last time I gave way to him, so he can sit down now.
Does the Home Secretary admit that the backlog on asylum applications is now 90,000, which is almost double the figure we left him? That is due to his policies.
Does he acknowledge that even without counting the people who come from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, asylum applications are now running at 70,000 a year at least, whereas we left him with a figure of less than 40,000 a year? Does he admit that that is due to his policies? He alone decided not to implement the safe list and procedures against illegal working. He alone decided to grant an amnesty to 20,000 asylum seekers. He alone decided that—not his officials, not the Opposition, not the international community—so let him have the guts to acknowledge it. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is the right hon. Lady giving way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I am not.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way, so hon. Members should not try to intervene.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall now come to the second last issue on our list of fiascos: the immigration situation. Over the summer, a great deal of attention was paid to the right hon. Gentleman's mismanagement of the passport system.

Mr. Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice. One of my constituents waited eight and a half years for a decision on his asylum status—

Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He is trying to make a political argument through the Chair. It is not a point of order.

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman has a constituent in difficulty, he should approach his own Government. I do not know why he feels that he has to approach you, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying, over the summer there was considerable concern about the mismanagement of the UK Passport Agency. Huge queues formed, and people trying to get passports were in considerable distress. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to assure the House that he will not pass on the costs of that fiasco to British passport holders in increased fees for passports?
Of course, much of the muddle resulted from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman combined a change in the computer system with a change in the rules governing child passports. One would have thought that he would learn from that, and say, "If new computer systems are being installed, I really should not add anything else." But what did he do? In Croydon, where the Immigration and Nationality Directorate tries manfully to tackle long queues, he added to a new computer system a relocation.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: It was no good last time, so I do not want to listen to the hon. Gentleman this time either.
Is the Home Secretary aware of the effect of what he did? Applications for visas and applications in respect of immigration have remained unopened since July. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that? Is he aware that in one month—

Ms Rosie Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot find any reference to this matter in the motion.

Madam Speaker: The motion refers to Home Office affairs in general.

Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary added to a new computer system in Croydon a complete relocation. As I have said, although the right hon. Gentleman has tried to cover it up, that resulted in—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will have to hear this, whether he wants to or not. That resulted in mail remaining unopened since July. In one month, only 1,800 out of 52,000 calls were answered by the office in Croydon. Many foreign investors are complaining because they are unable to obtain visas, and many other people have been put through immense distress.
I have been down to Croydon. I saw what looked like human cattle pens: people crammed in, pressed together, desperately trying to obtain answers to their immigration applications. I talked to some of the people coming out, who told me that this was their third, fourth or fifth visit. That, too, was the Home Secretary's decision. He authorised the relocation, at a time when he knew that a new computer system was being installed.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, if the intervention is about Croydon.

Mr. Davies: As the right hon. Lady has pointed out, the number of asylum seekers has risen from 30,000 to nearly 80,000. Does she accept that, when the brief for the new computer system in Croydon was given to Siemens, it assumed a maximum of about 50,000? That could not satisfactorily embrace the needs of people—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Mr. Davies: The system did not take account of the crisis in Yugoslavia. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the right hon. Lady to laugh at the plight of asylum seekers, but it was her Government's fault.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has just made out a case against the Government and their handling of the problem. Having increased the number of applications, they imposed a relocation on top of that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman had thought through what he said—although I had given him a good deal of time to consider it, because I did not immediately allow him to intervene.
Finally, let me deal with the issue of the Mitrokhin archive. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Ministers are weary of the Mitrokhin archive. I am sorry that they find the issue of cold war spies so trivial and laughable. Those who suffered from their treachery will not.
Will the Home Secretary answer two questions that I put to him last week and which he did not answer? As he knew about Melita Norwood in December 1998, and knew that information was coming out and that details would be published, why did he do nothing to inform either Parliament or the Prime Minister? The Home Secretary knows that, when I asked him for a comprehensive list, I meant a list not of every spy going back to the 15th century, but of those likely to be exposed as a result of the Mitrokhin archive. We were getting a-spy-a-day revelations in the press. It would have been more appropriate for the Home Secretary to give the revelations to Parliament. That was the question that I asked. I should like to know what on earth the Home Secretary was doing between December 1998 and September this year in respect of the Mitrokhin archive. Perhaps a few officials kept him in the dark. I do not know; perhaps he will blame them again.
Can the Home Secretary answer the question that I ended with last week and which I expected him to answer with vehement indignation? Instead, he did not answer it either publicly at the time, or privately since. Will he assure the House that, given the links between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Stasi and between Labour Ministers and CND, there is no link whatever between any currently serving Minister and anyone who is named in the Mitrokhin archive? It seems such a simple question, yet, apparently, it cannot be answered.
Before they came to power, the Government promised that they were going to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime. They have reduced police numbers by more than 1,000; encouraged bogus asylum seekers through a long series of measures to soften up the system; failed to handle the issue of asylum seekers who were crowding into Kent, despite continual pleas from Kent, until the issue had flared up in Dover—only then did the Home Secretary act; have added changes in the law to one agency and changes in location to another when they were already hard pressed and could not cope with what they had; and have not keep the House informed of something that would drip through our press over the summer and that concerned issues as serious as treachery.
I could list a host of other things, as you said, Madam Speaker, that the debate was about Home Office affairs in general. I will resist the temptation, but on future occasions we will return to those matters. On the four issues that we have identified, the Home Secretary should take responsibility and apologise properly.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
applauds the Government for its achievements on Home Office issues; notes that the previous government left the youth justice system in disarray, left chaos in the immigration and asylum system,

in particular as a result of provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, and that police numbers fell by 1,500 between 1992–93 and 1997–98; further notes the action that the Government has taken in asking the Intelligence and Security Committee to review the handling of the Mitrokhin Archive, including key decisions taken before 1997; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to provide new money to fund the recruitment of 5,000 police officers over and above the number that would otherwise have been recruited, comprehensively to tackle crime and disorder and to develop a fairer, faster and firmer immigration and asylum system, through the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which will better serve genuine refugees and help reduce the number of abusive claims in the United Kingdom.
The kindest thing that can be said about the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is that it was not up to her usual standard. It was a confused diatribe from a party that failed in government and has done no better in opposition, that talked tough on law and order, but presided over a doubling of crime, that promised to increase police numbers, but allowed numbers to fall by 1,500 over five years—

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: Later—sit down. Not even I intervened in the first two sentences of the right hon. Lady's speech, but I will give way later.
The Conservative party said that it would get a grip on the asylum system, but it left only chaos and confusion. It shouts about immigration control, but ordered a secret amnesty for asylum seekers. Its record in opposition as well as in government is as incredible as it is incoherent.
Let me deal with each of the points that are raised in the motion. I understand that it is a general omnibus Home Office debate and look forward to any questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends may have about the attitude of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to fox hunting. I deal first—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) must contain herself. I am sure that she will be allowed to intervene eventually.

Mr. Straw: I will deal first with the issue of police numbers.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: I give way.

Miss Widdecombe: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that it is a fact that he inherited 16,000 more police officers than the previous Government were left by Labour? Will he just acknowledge that? Does he agree that, in our last five years in government, we increased the number of police constables by more than 2,000; that he has reduced that number by 922; and that he has presided over an overall decrease in the number of police officers of more than 1,000? Those are the facts, and he cannot deny them. Will he now cease the rhetoric and start apologising?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady had 30 minutes in which to make her speech, but evidently felt that she had not made her points properly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am addressing the issue of police numbers.
If the right hon. Lady wants to go back, the fastest rate of increase in police numbers occurred between 1974 and 1979, when they increased by 2,000 annually. [Interruption.] I am happy to give the House the facts. Between 1979 and 1991, the numbers increased by 1,000 annually.
From 1992 to 1997—the period in which the right hon. Lady was an adornment to the previous Government—the previous Administration promised that police numbers would rise by 5,000. That pledge was given by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and repeated by the right hon. Lady in January 1997. They promised that police numbers would rise, whereas police numbers declined by 1,500 between April 1993 and March 1998, under budgets decided by Conservative Home Secretaries.

Mr. James Paice: In 1998.

Mr. Straw: In January 1997, the right hon. Lady announced in the House the police budgets and capping for financial years 1997 and 1998, which began before the general election. The previous Administration decided those budgets.
I shall tell the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) something else: police numbers did indeed fall by 718 in 1998–99. The only difference between the money that we have spent on police numbers and the money that the previous Administration said that they would spend on police numbers is that, in our Budget, police spending rose by £20 million.
What is clear beyond peradventure is that, when the previous Prime Minister and the right hon. Lady promised 5,000 officers to the House and to the Conservative party conference, they had neither the money nor the mechanism to deliver on that promise. That is why numbers fell.

Mr. David Maclean: How does the Home Secretary square that comment with the statement made this year by Fred Broughton, chairman of the Police Federation, who said:
The hard fact is, despite Government reassurances that the fight against crime is still a top priority, the police service has witnessed the largest fall in actual police numbers since the crisis days of the mid-1970s"?

Mr. Straw: Fred Broughton was entirely right, but he was talking about the decline in police numbers that I have just described. Under Tory Budgets, numbers decreased by 1,500. Moreover, they would have decreased much further in 1998–99 had it not been for our additional money.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have developed this point.
Against the background of falling police numbers, I spoke to my good and close friends in the Treasury—[Interruption.] It is a verity that all Home Secretaries have close and cordial relations with the Treasury. I secured

£35 million extra, over and above that allocated in the comprehensive spending review for next year, to recruit 5,000 more police officers than planned. That is what I secured from the Treasury, and that is what we shall do. Next year, there will be £35 million in new money, with more to follow in the succeeding two years. There will be new money to recruit more officers, over and above those already planned. The new money was welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which called it "a significant step forward", and by the Police Superintendents Association, which described it and other announcements we made as a "huge injection of cash".
As I told the Select Committee this morning, revised estimates now indicate that the baseline for recruits over the next three years is not the 11,000 that I gave at the Labour party conference, but 15,000, with the 5,000 as additional new recruits. Together with the extra £34 million that we are investing in extending the DNA database and the extra £50 million going towards the transformation of police communications, our crime fighting fund represents a huge injection of cash.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, because his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was singularly unpersuasive. Is it not a source of concern to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far in 1999, information from 23 of the 43 police authorities in England and Wales reveals that no fewer than 2,324 people have left the police force, and that there has been a reduction in the numbers in Lancashire, incorporating the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency? Does that fact not help to explain why, in the past seven days alone, the chairman of the Police Federation, the vice-chairman of the Police Federation and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have united in condemnation of his inadequate record?

Mr. Straw: Given my experience with the 11,000 figure, I hesitate to offer a calculation off the top of my head. However, if there is a loss through retirement and resignation of about 2,400 in half the police forces, that is roughly equivalent to the total wastage and retirements—about 5,000 or 6,000—in previous years. The full and detailed projections were set out in the information that I gave to the Select Committee, which is also in the Library.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Government were elected on a manifesto promise to put more officers back on the beat, and given that the memorandum that the Home Secretary brought to the Select Committee this morning showed a figure at the date Labour took over of 127,158 officers in England and Wales, is it a commitment of the Government that, by the end of this Administration, there will be more officers in total and more constables in particular?

Mr. Straw: That point was raised also by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The average wastage in the past three years has been about 17,000, excluding transfers between forces. Our estimate—it is only an estimate, but it has been independently verified—is that the police were planning to recruit 15,000 additional officers before taking any account of the additional new money that we are providing next year and


for the two years thereafter. Adding the 5,000 to the 15,000 gives 20,000 recruits, if the original baseline estimate of 15,000 is correct over three years.
If wastage rates stay as they are—and, for the reasons I have explained, no one can be certain of that—there should be a higher number of police officers in post in total at the end of the period of three years than there are at the moment. That is not only my wish, but my hope and my expectation. That is what I want to achieve.
We said in our manifesto that we wanted an increase in the number of officers released for operational duties, and that is what we are achieving—not least by major efficiency improvements within the police, including the Narey changes which are transforming the way in which the courts operate and the efficiency and speed with which the police can get people into court.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has come to this House to criticise our spending on the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) asked how she squared that with statements made by the shadow Chancellor—and repeated by the Leader of the Opposition—on spending which, even before we announced the £34 million on DNA, the £50 million on the police radio and the £35 million on new recruits, they had damned as reckless.
We listened as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald sought to evade the answer—not once, not twice, but three times. We were left with a pledge about what the Conservatives might spend if and when they finally came back to power. However, the question was not whether spending at some distant point in the future was reckless. The criticism made by the shadow Chancellor was of our spending now of £1.24 billion on the police.

Miss Widdecombe: We were talking about welfare spending.

Mr. Straw: I heard the shadow Chancellor at the time and he did not say that; he was talking about all our spending. The right hon. Lady is proposing substantial increases in spending. Where is she expecting to make cuts? Would she cut the 50 per cent. increase in funding for victim support? Would she cut the £150 million extra that we are spending on closed circuit television? Would she cut our £60 million on burglary prevention or the money that we are investing to help protect the most vulnerable pensioners? Is she intending to cut numbers in prisons? We know for certain that she is not intending to cut the asylum budget, because an amendment for which the Conservatives voted in another place would increase the asylum budget by £500 million in a year.

Miss Widdecombe: Is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is asking me—he has not yet shed the habits of Opposition—how I would spend enough money to have the same number of police officers as we left him an admission that he intends to cut those numbers?

Mr. Straw: Time and again, we have put to the right hon. Lady the inconsistency between what she is saying and what the shadow Chancellor is saying and, time and again, she has refused to answer. I have already answered

a question about my expectation on police numbers from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
There is a reason why no one can predict with absolute certainty the overall number of police officers in three years: the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. That Act, which we voted against and the Conservatives voted for, was not a Conservative oversight. It was a key part of the programme of a Government of whom the right hon. Lady was a member. It removed the legal power of Ministers to set police force establishments. Bringing forward the measures, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said:
In future, the number of constables in a force will be a matter for local decision … It is not a matter for me."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 113.]
That ever wonderful source of embarrassing quotations that the Conservative party wishes to forget, the campaign guide—this one is for 1994—says that the Act would remove
perverse incentives to recruit police officers instead of civilians".
It is partly for that reason—the right hon. Lady is looking round as though she had not spotted the Act—that police numbers fell when the previous Administration said that they were going to rise. There was no mechanism to deliver her promise. That is why her promises to restore levels to a certain figure are worth as much as her statements as a Minister.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The House will note the extraordinarily complacent statement in the Government's amendment to today's motion, applauding the Government
for its achievements on Home Office issues".
Will the Home Secretary tell the House and my constituents categorically—not expressing a hope, as he did when answering the question of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—from his consultation with chief constables, when the number of police officers is going to rise, when the asylum situation is going to stabilise, when the backlog of immigration and Nationality Directorate cases in my constituency is going to be sorted out and when the shambles in the Passport Agency is going to be sorted out? When those problems have been solved, he may be applauded for his achievements.

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me he will hear the answers to two of his three questions. I have already answered his question about police numbers. We are putting in new money that the previous Government never provided. We are also setting up a mechanism for the delivery of those numbers. However, without a change to the 1994 Act, which the hon. Gentleman supported, we cannot guarantee police numbers in three years. I have given the House the full figures on our best estimates so far and I have also said that I hope and expect that after those three years, numbers will be above the level when we came to office.

Mr. Richard Allan: In many previous debates on this subject, the Home Secretary has cited the Police and Magistrates' Court Act and said that he has no power to dictate numbers. That is a safer line


than the one that he took at the conference; perhaps he should have stuck to it. Will he now tell us whether he intends to amend that Act, and if not, whether he agrees that establishments should be set locally? Is he not concerned that as only three years' funding is given at a time, and police officers' careers are much longer than that, many chief constables will not recruit extra officers when they get the extra money?

Mr. Straw: We have introduced longer horizons for public spending than the previous Administration did—but with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have to tell him that no Government could sign up to the proposition that they should give firm levels of funding for more than three years at a time. As for his other points, it is precisely because the 1994 Act removed the Home Secretary's power to set establishment levels that we have established separately, under the Appropriation Acts, a system for ring-fencing the additional money. What I said at the Labour party conference was exactly accurate: that money will be used for new police recruits. We shall also have detailed discussions with chief constables, and do a lot of work with them, to ensure that the additional money is used for additional new recruits whom they would not otherwise have employed.

Mr. Geraint Davies: How does my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition's pledge to increase numbers squares with their "commonsense revolution", which commits them to reducing taxation year after year, and must therefore mean privatisation or cuts?

Mr. Straw: The reason why the Conservative party, for all its bluster, remains mired in opposition with far less support than any Opposition since the war, is the incoherence of its position. The Conservatives do not only say one thing and do another; they say one thing, say another, and then say a third thing. People outside listen to what they say, and know that there is no coherence behind their approach.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall make some progress, and then I shall give way.
As she asserted a few minutes ago, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald piloted the Asylum and Immigration Act through the House in 1996. Its effect, despite the words that she used at the time, was to cause chaos and confusion.
In case hon. Members have forgotten, or did not hear it, I remind the House of what David Mellor said on 29 August about the Conservatives' asylum record:
The Conservatives have nothing to be proud of. This asylum crisis has been brewing a long time. When I was in the Cabinet it was raised. Two of us expressed concern, but the rest pooh-poohed it or were indifferent".
Looking back on the Tory years, it is difficult to select the most incompetent public policy decision, because there are so many to choose from. We saw "The Major Years" last night, and it offered a cornucopia of incompetence which defies belief, and sometimes memory. None the less, I ask my hon. Friends to try to choose the single most incompetent set of policies. There was the poll tax, the Child Support Agency and, sadly, the privatisation of the railways—[Interruption.]

The Conservatives do not think that the privatisation of the railways, and the way in which it was done, have been a disaster. No wonder they lost office and will stay out of office; they do not understand.
Let me explain why the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is down among the worst of those policies, with the poll tax and the Child Support Agency. It had as its centrepiece the plan that those who claimed asylum in the United Kingdom—at Dover, Heathrow, or any of our other ports and airports—would continue to be entitled to claim social security cash benefits, whereas the other half of asylum seekers, who applied in-country, would receive nothing.
We asked at the time what would happen to those people and where they would go, who would be responsible for them, and who would pick up the tab. We kept asking those questions, but we never got a proper answer. The answer, as the constituents of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, and the people of Kent and many London boroughs know to their cost, was that the overwhelming burden of supporting those in-country applicants was transferred to the people and councils of London and Kent. They had not voted for it, nor had they asked for it. It was a present from the Conservative Government.
Like so much else under the previous Administration, the burden was not imposed as a consequence of any clearly thought-out policy but in the absence of one. The simple truth is that we were left, as David Mellor so generously admitted, with an asylum system in disarray. It is racked with delays, encourages abuse and evasion, and fails the taxpayer and the genuine refugee alike.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1996–97, as a direct consequence of the Conservative legislation, Kent county council incurred costs of £2 million? When it made representations to Kent Members of Parliament, it was told to clear off. They did not lift a finger to help, which is in complete contrast to the assistance that my right hon. Friend has given under the current Administration.

Mr. Straw: I am, of course, aware of the situation my hon. Friend has described and I pay tribute to the local authorities in Kent, of whatever political persuasion, and their staff for their bearing of that huge burden. However, the responsibility for that burden rests wholly and exclusively on the shoulders of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues, who imposed that burden on local authorities.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have mixed feelings about the 1996 legislation, as I have said before in the House. However, should not he tell the House that in-country applicants for asylum are mostly people who have arrived here as visitors and overstayed? When they had their first conversation at the port of entry with the immigration officer, they made it clear that they had the funds to finance their visit. Therefore, they are in a different category.

Mr. Straw: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comment, but that is why I hope that he shares my astonishment that amendment No. 118 tabled


in the other place by the Opposition—I recommend that he read the amendment because the effect it would have is plain—would restore cash benefits for asylum seekers to those from whom we propose to remove them from 1 April next year, the day on which the new system of support is due to come into force, and would also restore cash benefits to all the in-country applicants the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is the most astonishing position for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her right hon. and hon. Friends to take. She has even described amendment No. 118 as sensible.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has also said that amendment No. 118 was tabled to ensure that we honour a commitment not to implement the new system of asylum support until the limits of two months for initial applicants and four months for appeals had been brought into force. However, if she were to read our White Paper, she would see that it made it clear that there was no link whatever between those two proposals. The two plus four system will come into force from April 2001, and we made clear our determination to bring the new asylum support system into force in April 2000.
I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) about the asylum and immigration system, but I can tell him that the proposals in amendment No. 118 to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers for at least a year—which his Front-Bench colleagues support and apparently intend to whip every Conservative Member into the Lobby to support when the Bill returns to this Chamber—would cost £500 million and suck in thousands and thousands of opportunist economic migrants. I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald explains her position to her constituents and the other people of Kent.
The Conservatives have raised only two issues with any seriousness on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I have just dealt with their proposals to restore the payment of £500 million to abusive in-country asylum seekers. What was the second? In all the hours and hours of debate on the Bill, what constructive proposals were made by Conservative Members? Did they say that they were going to reinstate the white list? No, they never discussed it. Did they say that they were going to overturn our removal of the primary purpose rule? No, and when they had the opportunity to vote against in June 1997, they did not take it—they allowed it through without a Division or discussion. Did they propose other ways in which they could tighten control? No.
What makes what the Conservatives are now saying totally hollow is that, of all the issues that they could have selected in Standing Committee, the only one that they chose was to try to undermine the civil penalties on rogue lorry drivers shipping in clandestine immigrants. If the right hon. Lady wants to intervene now, she had better explain why she so pathetically failed to make any proposals to improve immigration controls. The two proposals that she made would undermine those controls.

Miss Widdecombe: I did not do so because we had instituted a system that resulted in a 40 per cent. fall. Therefore, we had done what was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to unpick it and we were opposing that unpicking. Yes, we opposed the fining of

lorry drivers who find clandestine entrants in their loads and report it to the police. They deserve to be commended, not fined.

Mr. Straw: If they are complicit in having clandestine entrants in the backs of their lorries, they deserve not to be commended, but to be fined. That is exactly what we are proposing. As for the numbers, the previous Administration had to make two attempts at improving immigration control in one Parliament, so the right hon. Lady knows that the numbers of asylum applications rise and fall for reasons that have nothing to do with circumstances in this country.
There are pull factors and I fully accept that—that is why we are going to overturn the restoration of social security cash benefits to in-country applicants. The right hon. Lady is claiming clairvoyance among her many attributes if she is saying that it was possible to foresee the conflict in the former Republic of Yugoslavia in the past two years.

Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
The third issue raised by the right hon. Lady is that of Mitrokhin and spies. It was dealt with in great detail in my statement to the House last Thursday. I also gave a full written statement on 13 September, following revelations in the media in the wake of the publication of the Mitrokhin archive. I do not intend to repeat all that I said this time last week, beyond answering the points raised by the right hon. Lady in her speech.
On the back of newspaper stories that were published in early September, the right hon. Lady appeared on the "Today" programme to issue her instant response to the revelations, saying:
If there are more traitors like this one"—
referring to Mrs. Melita Norwood—
living freely without being prosecuted then we should be told. Parliament should be told all of the names and the reasons why they were not brought to justice unless there are clear security reasons not to do so.
I ask my hon. Friends to weigh the right hon. Lady's words. The reason that she gave for not denouncing people without trial or conviction was not the rule of natural justice or the rule of law in this country, but simply whether there were "security reasons" for not doing so. Today, she asked why I did not inform Parliament when I was first told of the plans to publish the Mitrokhin archive. As I said, I was told that in December 1998.
The right hon. Lady's implication is that I should have informed Parliament of the plan to publish the book, which was not my responsibility—as she well knows, the decision to publish in that way was initiated by her former right hon. and learned Friend Sir Malcolm Rifkind, then the Foreign Secretary, and it was endorsed by the present Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. Alternatively, I can only assume that she was asking me to publicise the fact that the Security Service was considering whether to recommend Mrs. Norwood for prosecution, as I was told in December last year.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider the implications of what the right hon. Lady was inviting me to do. Before the Security Service had decided whether


someone should be prosecuted, still less before the Attorney-General and the prosecutors could decide, she was inviting me to announce that consideration of prosecution was in train. That would have amounted to the grossest interference by the Secretary of State in the prosecution process, and would have been wholly improper. I am astonished that the right hon. Lady, who dug herself a pit by proposing that we should support trial by denunciation, should keep on digging.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, as these are important issues. He now appears to be presenting a picture that is slightly different from the one presented in earlier statements. He may want to clarify what he has just said, but my understanding is that the decision not to prosecute was made in 1992. That is what he has told us hitherto—that that decision had been taken before he was told about the matter in 1998.
Again according to what the Home Secretary said, I understand that the decision to review whether there was a case for prosecution was taken after publicity had been given to the matter, and after a taped confession was broadcast in the press and media. That meant that we then had an admission by Mrs. Norwood that could be added to the former evidence, which did not include that admission. Is the Home Secretary saying that he knew in 1998 that there was such an admission by Mrs. Norwood?

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Miss Widdecombe: The picture is very confused. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but he has contradicted what he said before.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: She has lost it.

Miss Widdecombe: I think that it is the Home Secretary who has lost it.

Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Lady is talking about when Malcolm Rifkind was in charge. He ain't on my side.

Mr. Straw: What I am saying is exactly the same as what I said in the Home Office statement that I issued on 13 September. The right hon. Lady prides herself that she is properly briefed, so I suggest that she read that statement, as it makes matters clear. In that statement, I said that I had been told for the first time about the plans to publish the Mitrokhin archive in December 1998. I also stated that I was told at that time that the Security Service was considering whether Mrs. Norwood should be recommended for prosecution.
In that statement, I also said that I was told earlier this year that the matter had been referred to the Attorney-General. I said that I was told that the Attorney-General had decided that there was no decision on prosecution for him to take, as he considered that the last date on which it would have been possible to make a proper decision was in 1992–93—when the Security Service decided not to put the relevant papers to the Attorney-General so that he could consider prosecution.
I repeated all that five days ago. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald knows very well, I also made it clear five days ago that the papers are now

back with the Law Officers, as a result of the admission apparently made by Mrs. Norwood in the BBC programme. The right hon. Lady has failed again today to justify her appalling statement in mid-September, just as she failed last week. In that statement, she asked that I should denounce people who had been the subject of neither trial nor conviction.
Vasili Mitrokhin worked for the KGB for more than 30 years, but he was disgusted by what he witnessed. He came to the United Kingdom because he thought that this country was different—that it was based on democracy and the rule of law. It would be a cruel irony indeed if this country were ever to slip into the sort of practices now proposed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald—practices that Mr. Mitrokhin worked so assiduously to expose.
I turn now to the matter of CND. I am appalled that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has resorted to simple, straightforward smears of that organisation. We became all too used to such smears when the Conservative party was in government. Conservative Members had an appalling record in previous years, but I thought that they had learned something at least about the need to raise the standards of debate in public life.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be for the last time.

Dr. Lewis: It has now been revealed beyond all doubt that the Stasi penetrated CND. Will the Home Secretary therefore take this opportunity to confirm that it is legitimate for a security service in a democracy to monitor penetration of so-called peace movements by communist, fascist or other agencies or movements that are allied to any dictatorship with which that service is confronted? Will he say once and for all whether MI5 was right or wrong to monitor communist infiltration of the so-called peace movement in the 1980s? Does he recognise that that penetration was exposed not by Mitrokhin, but in the files of the Stasi, with a quality of information that led to successful prosecutions in Germany and the United States of America? Why is nothing being done about the matter here?

Mr. Straw: The position regarding the Security Service and subversion is set out in "MI5: The Security Service", a perfectly public booklet. It is currently in its third edition, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has read the second and first editions as well as the third. It states:
It has often been alleged that in the past the Service systematically investigated trade unions and various pressure groups such as the National Union of Mineworkers and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
It goes on to say that that allegation was not true. It adds:
To fulfil its function of protecting national security, the Service therefore investigated individual members of bona fide organisations when there were grounds to believe that their actions were intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.
If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I sign up to that proposition without knowing anything of what happened under the previous Administration, I do sign up to it. I hope that that helps him.
I was referring to the fact that the Conservative party is in Opposition now. I spent 18 years in Opposition, 17 of them on the Opposition Front Bench. I commend that period to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues. I guess that I know more than most about what is required of a shadow Minister. To make a name in Opposition, one must be ever ready to give a comment or instant quotation. I commend the right hon. Lady for being the most accessible member of the shadow Cabinet. She is ever available to the press with a string of adjectives about the Government's latest iniquity, no matter what the issue may be. There is no question of her going ex-directory.
Just in case the right hon. Lady's phone is engaged when reporters call, however, they can visit her very own website. It is called—and this is absolutely true—the "Widdy Web". When I was told that, I thought that it was a spoof. I thought that Millbank was up to something that I would never have approved, or that some rogue member of the Security Service was doing some private enterprise. So I had the site checked out, and it is entirely authentic, accurate and authorised.
We have no screen on the Front Bench, so I can offer hon. Members only a preview of the site. On page 1, it offers photographs of Ann at conference, Ann at a fringe meeting, Ann after the fringe meeting, Ann during her speech, the conclusion of Ann's speech and Ann signing copies of her new book. It goes on. Indeed, it goes on and on and on.
In her eagerness to please the press, the right hon. Lady forgets the No. 1 rule of rapid response—think before you speak. I have three examples of where she has forgotten that rule. First, just two weeks ago, she described British plans to allow thousands of refugees across Europe to settle in the United Kingdom as "serious" and "perverse". It was indeed a dreadful idea. The only problem was that there are, there were, there never have been any such plans.
Then, she was at it again last Wednesday in The Independent, criticising what she thought were Government plans to allow remand prisoners the vote. Well, it was a terrible idea. The only problem with the proposal and with her criticism is that the proposal to allow remand prisoners the vote was backed fully by the Conservative party and its representatives on the all-party working party on electoral procedures. They signed up to the proposal.
Then—this is dear to my heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker—last Friday, she even popped up as the champion of freedom of information. She criticised me—the champion of freedom of information, as everyone knows—for flawed plans. Yet that is the same Conservative party of BSE and arms to Iraq; the Conservative party which at the last election said that there was
no need for a Freedom of Information Act",
which it said was of interest only—I have warmed to this idea, by the way—to
inquisitive, left-wing busy-bodies"—[Interruption.]
In opposition, one can only, sadly, be judged by what one says. In government, we are rightly judged both by what we say and by what we do. It is an eternal verity of government—but especially of life in the Home Office—

that, to say the least, not everything works out as intended all the time. It has not under this Government and it did not under the previous one. I am always ready to take advice, but the last person from whom I intend to take advice—

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am coming to the end of my remarks, so I will not give way. I take advice about taxis from the hon. Gentleman, but not about anything else.
The last person from whom I intend to take advice about the conduct of my office is the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, whose record as a Home Office Minister was—I put this delicately—scarcely written up as distinguished. It is as if she and her colleagues at central office now want to airbrush out of history her record and that of the last Conservative Government. It is no wonder that a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer said on television last night of the Conservative party:
it is a party beyond hope".
By contrast with the Conservative party, this new Labour Government deliver on their promises. [Laughter.] Oh yes. We are on track to deliver our pledge to speed up youth justice. Recorded crime is down. There is new money for the police and we are giving increased powers to them. We are introducing overdue reforms to make our immigration system fairer, faster and firmer. That is the difference between new Labour and a very old, marginalised and divided Conservative party. While they shout, we deliver. I commend the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We as a party and I personally welcome this debate on home affairs early after the summer recess. I welcome the opportunity that has been given us by the Conservative Opposition to take stock on the eve of the two-and-a-half year anniversary of Labour's taking over the Administration. My hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment.
Whatever debates we may have, and we shall have many about police numbers, immigration and asylum, prisons and the rest, we have sought to flag up in our amendment the fact that the Home Secretary as custodian of these matters and the Government of whom he is a member have one overriding duty, which is to balance the obligation to sustain a society of good law and order with the defence and support at all stages of the liberties of the individual. Whether one is talking about prisoners or asylum seekers, the civil liberties of all people on these shores are important. My first point relates to this; it is not included specifically in the motion, but the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) alluded to it.
Last week, in the view of many hon. Members and many of our constituents, the way in which the perfectly proper law and order duty of the police was fulfilled in relation to the state visit of the President of China trespassed on the wrong side of the line of defending people's civil liberties—wherever the instructions came from, if there were any, and wherever the discussions took place, because we know that there were some. It is wholly understandable and acceptable that people should be prevented from scaling barriers, running in front of state


carriages and so on. However, it is not acceptable that people should not be allowed to stand, to shout and hold flags along the route of, and in sight of, a visiting Head of State.
It is not the job of the Home Office, nor of any police officer, to spare the Labour Government or other Governments embarrassment. It is their job to ensure that law and order are protected, but that people of all views can express their views. It was sad for many of us, who remember with vivid accuracy those horrible pictures of the events in Tiananmen square, that there are now on file pictures showing what looks like a repression of civil liberties in this country, which is meant to be the mother of democracies.
Whatever I do as the successor to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in the post of Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs, I shall, above all, try to ensure that the civil liberties of all our peoples are upheld, and shall hold the Government to account in that regard.
The Tory Government were not a model Administration in their tenure of the Home Office. Under the Tories, police numbers were not a great success. Asylum and immigration policy was not one of their golden successes. Accountability for the Prison Service was not a glorious moment in the career of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The Tories did not flag up as one of their great triumphs their record of compliance with the European convention on human rights. Given the number of Tory failings, there is something unlikely in the attack being made today from their Benches.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): That is a bit of an understatement.

Mr. Hughes: I am trying to be gentle at the beginning of my remarks.
One of the biggest failings related to the subject on which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald chose to attack the Government first—police numbers. In 1992, it was neither the Liberal Democrats nor Labour who said that there would be 1,000 more police officers, yet, in the following year, there were fewer officers. In 1995, it was neither our party nor the Labour party, which pledged—in the words of the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—5,000 more police officers, yet by the end of the Tory Administration, there were fewer officers.
The truth is that, during the Tory Administration of 1992 to 1997, as the promises went up, police numbers went down. [Interruption.] The Conservatives deny that, but it is a fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."] Whatever figures one takes between 1992 and 1997, although there are disputes as to the figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Happily, today, some figures were produced for the Select Committee, although they go back only three years. Under the most common figures, between 1992 and 1997, neither pledge—of 5,000 or of 1,000 more officers—was fulfilled. At most, there were about 100 more officers. That was not what the electorate were told; the Tory party did not deliver.

Miss Widdecombe: According to those figures, is it not true that we left 16,000 more police officers than we inherited, and, that during the last five years of our

Government, the number of constables—actual policemen on the beat—rose by more than 2,000? Will the hon. Gentleman admit that?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady is right to say that, when the Tories left office in 1997, the number of police officers in England and Wales was considerably higher than when they took office in 1979; they had had 18 years in office, so we should hope that the numbers were up. It is also true that, at the end of that period, there was an increase in the number of constables, for which people had argued. I am trying to make the point that, if the right hon. Lady sets out to attack the Labour Government for failing to honour their promises—which I too am perfectly happy to do—she should remember that her Government also failed to honour their promises on police numbers.
I remember the 1997 debate in this place when the then Government spokesman, who is now First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, complained that, while capital investment and council tax had increased, police numbers had decreased. Within a week or two, the Labour party had promised in its manifesto to provide more officers on the beat. I recall that the theme music for the Labour election campaign was "Things can only get better". Yet we are having this debate today because, disappointingly, many things in the Home Office appear to have got worse.
The past two and a half years of Labour Government have not been an unmitigated success. The Home Secretary pleaded guilty to things not always going as he expected, but even he could not have predicted the catalogue of mistakes and/or disasters that that two and a half years have brought. Resources may have been won for the police, but there are no extra officers on the beat. I do not recall the Home Office's management of the evidence before the Lawrence inquiry as being a particularly golden moment, and it is a tragedy that the matter was not handled better.
According to Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, prison conditions are not improving generally and prison overcrowding is not lessening. Asylum and immigration applications—and I deal with as many as any other hon. Member—are being dealt with less and less effectively despite the good work of many civil servants. People seeking passport applications had a summer to remember and, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, legislation on terrorism had to be amended, and the prosecution processes for spies are clearly not working.
I have one comment for the Home Secretary about the events of the past month. We could take issue with the words that he used to describe the number of new police recruits and with the misinformation—or misapprehension—in his conference speech that was not corrected. The Home Secretary said at the end of September that there would be a baseline figure of 11,000 recruits. He then revealed last Thursday in an answer to me that that 11,000 baseline figure was subject to revision and announced this morning that it will be 15,000. That suggests, if not malice or ill will, at least an inadequate degree of competence—which is not what the public expect of the Home Office.
I am the chairman of governors at a primary school in my constituency where five, six and seven-year-old pupils must attend numeracy hours. I think we should send the


Secretary of State for Education and Employment down the road to the Home Office; perhaps Treasury officers should also attend in order to help add up the figures. The Government's record on statistics is not a proud one.
I have some specific questions for the Home Secretary about his speech and what he said this morning on police numbers and funding. I am grateful for the Home Secretary's answer to me about police numbers. I understand what happened under the 1994 legislation: it is not for him to determine the number of officers in each force. The right hon. Gentleman has said for the past five years—and certainly for the past two and a half years while in government—that it is not the Government's responsibility when police numbers decline. So his announcement at the Labour party conference of an increase in police numbers was a bit rich. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways: either he can acquire more money, ring-fence it and provide more police recruits—or he cannot. I understand the difference. However, refusing to take responsibility when police numbers decline and then claiming the glory when they increase is not consistent politics.
The Home Secretary did not answer my specific question to which the public require an answer. I asked whether there will be more police officers at the end of this Administration than at its beginning. Is that the Government's objective and commitment? Is that their pledge? The Home Secretary said that, over the next three years, he expects and hopes that police numbers will not decrease. I repeat: will there be more or fewer police officers at the end of this Labour Administration? That is a simple question to which I hope we will receive a simple answer—the Minister may reply in his winding-up speech.
My second question is important. Even though I was not previously doing this job for our party, I listened to the debates, which often concerned not police officers in general, but constables. The public do not want to discuss senior or administrative officers, but they often ask, "Will there be more officers on the beat?" That was the Labour manifesto pledge, so will there be more constables at the end of this Administration's term of office than there were at the beginning?
My third question is about money. In his Bournemouth speech, the Home Secretary made the announcement, which I welcome, that there would be extra money—a crime reduction fund—and a kick-start cash injection for it of £35 million. How much will that fund receive in total over the next three years? If it costs £25,000 to recruit a police officer—it does, according to a parliamentary answer from the right hon. Gentleman to one of my colleagues last year—by our calculation £35 million for each of the three years will not buy 5,000 extra recruits. The figures do not add up.
If the Home Secretary says that that is correct, that will be helpful, but in that case the figures will not make sense to us, unless all the crime reduction fund is to be ring-fenced for recruits and will increase in future years in real terms to pay for the extra 5,000 recruits. Perhaps the Minister will give us the answer. If there are to be the 5,000 extra recruits for which forces around the country have asked, which is the plan of the Government, and if

those forces are to be given £35 million in the first year, they will need considerably more in the following two years.
The crime reduction fund was not signalled as being entirely dedicated to extra recruits, and in his Bournemouth speech the Home Secretary specifically referred to the other claims to be made on it. One was the DNA database, price tag £34 million; the second was the new police radio station, price tag £50 million. Is it correct, therefore, that there is extra money—the crime-fighting fund—above the comprehensive spending review money and the £400 million made available through the crime reduction programme, not only for police recruitment over three years aiming at 5,000 recruits, but for DNA testing and the new police radio station? It would be helpful to have clarification of that.

Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's questions to the Home Secretary, but I hope that he will not exclude consideration of the important category of special constable. Given that there was a fall in their numbers of almost 10 per cent. between March 1998 and March 1999, will he ask the Home Secretary his intentions in that matter? If we listen intently—with beads of sweat on our brow and bated breath—he may tell us the position of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Hughes: Let me deal with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have always been a strong supporter of special constables and, as a London Member of Parliament, I have consistently lobbied both the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, and successive Conservative Home Secretaries for more special constables. London has had a lower rate than almost any other force in the country, but I believe that special constables play an important role and it is our view that there ought to be more of them in each area of the country. I can simply pass on the hon. Gentleman's question to the Home Secretary, and I am happy to endorse it. We ask that an announcement be made on the level of support for special constables.
Before I move off police matters, I have a final question on funding: does it come with strings attached? Various publications have suggested that, for the police to get the money from a fund to which they bid, they may be required not only to meet efficiency criteria, but to use certain of the equipment that the Home Office prefers. I have not yet had a chance to go round the country discussing the matter, as I have been in this job for only seven days, but I understand that many police forces are not keen on the equipment and certainly do not want their expenditure to be tied to its use.
One other policing matter has exercised my colleagues and me over the years. As the Home Secretary knows, one of the biggest expenses for the police budget and the budgets of other emergency services is pensions. That is because, unlike most people in society, people in those services cannot be expected to retire at the age of 60 or 65. Will the Home Secretary at least consider consulting his ministerial colleagues in other Departments on whether the pensions commitments for the emergency services could be taken out of the normal budget allocation? I know that there are implications, but if this Administration could get that sorted it would be a great relief to the police and fire authorities around the country, because their increasing pensions burden has a severe effect on other resources.
I am conscious that asylum and other immigration matters will be discussed by the House in a few days when Lords amendments come back to this place, but I will say a word or two now. I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald does not believe that the number of people who come to this country as asylum seekers or immigrants is more determined by the policy of the Government of the day than by events abroad. The large number of people who have come to my constituency from Kosovo or the Horn of Africa have come not because they assessed which was the best place in the world to come, but because European Union countries are expected to be sympathetic to people from countries suffering from poverty and civil war, many of whom have been persecuted or raped and have lost family, friends and homes. That is more likely to determine the numbers.
Of course, there are bogus asylum seekers, but a significant minority of those who apply are accepted on their first application, and a significant number of those whose application is turned down win on appeal. If we ever lose people's right to put their case in an appeal, we shall be in trouble. When will we have the resources, the people and the commitment to catch up and process the cases that are stacking up day after day?
This very morning, my constituency office had a phone call from a solicitor representing a young Kosovan refugee. He was told that the young man must go from his bed and breakfast in south London to Birmingham to collect his papers, because if they were sent to Croydon they would be lost in the post for six months. The refugee then asked whether he would be paid, because he has no money to go to Birmingham, but there was no guarantee of that. The system makes no sense. Asylum seekers and immigrants, whether they are accepted or not, have civil liberties; and we have a duty to ensure that the people who work hard in our immigration and nationality department have a system that works and ensures that justice is done and is seen to be done.
May I say a word about spies? I share the Home Secretary's view on the subject of the specific debate. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, my right hon. and hon. Friends or I are in a position to decide, let alone pronounce, who should be prosecuted for spying against this country.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No.
We need a process in which Security Service officers do not decide either. They should advise, there should be independent adjudication that is free of them and of Ministers and, ultimately, the Home Secretary should decide.
This Government were elected to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, a phrase that may come back to haunt them. Their policy is often as much about talking tough on crime and the causes of crime as about delivering.
I hope that the second half of this Administration will be caricatured as much by—characterised as much by—

Mr. Mackinlay: Both.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed, both. I hope that it will be characterised by being tough on incompetence and tough

on the causes of incompetence. The Home Office has a greater reputation for incompetence than any other Department. As I said a couple of weeks ago when asked to comment on the famous Bournemouth speech, if we cannot trust the Home Secretary or his press releases to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Home Office Ministers cannot expect the rest of the country to behave differently. If we cannot have confidence in the Home Office to ensure people's civil liberties and to provide the best public services on law and order, we cannot have confidence in the Government.
I do not think that people have confidence in the Home Office at the moment. Much in the administration of the Home Office is seriously rotten. Our job is co-operatively, constructively and, when necessary, aggressively to hold the Government to account, so that in their second two and a half years—or in as many months as they still have to go—things will get better, instead of promises of improvement followed by things actually getting worse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has put a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches from Back Benchers. That applies from now on.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In view of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not give way during my speech.
I am surprised that the Opposition have drawn the House's attention to the stewardship of cold war spies and the Mitrokhin archive, bearing in mind the fact that this matter relates mostly to their period in office. I regret that I was unable to be in the House last Thursday when the Home Secretary made a statement about the Mitrokhin archive. I was in Russia on parliamentary business, and watched his speech from my hotel bedroom. I was frustrated for two reasons. I have taken a great interest in this matter over the summer, and have corresponded with the Home Secretary.
First, my constituent, Michael John Smith, was imprisoned for 20 years for selling secrets to the Soviet Union. He claims that there was a miscarriage of justice and entrapment by the security services. He was convicted in part on the evidence of defectors. I have no way of knowing whether he was guilty or innocent, and I shall not detain the House on that: I shall try to probe some of the issues raised by his case in an Adjournment debate. However, it is interesting that if the existence of the Mitrokhin archive had been known to his defence counsel at his trial in 1993 and his appeal in 1995, it might have been relevant to the preparation of his case, especially as he is mentioned several times in Professor Christopher Andrew's book about the Mitrokhin archive. I want to flag up my concern about that.
My second interest in this matter is a parliamentary one. Parliament does not oversee the security services. The Intelligence and Security Committee is a fine body of hon. Members, but it is not a parliamentary committee. That is an important point: it is not a nuance or a minor detail.
This whole business has again raised the issue of the need for good freedom of information legislation. As much as I welcome the legislation to be introduced by the Government—it is 300 per cent. better than nothing—it is still inadequate. More importantly—this should interest


every hon. Member—it is amazing that it is appropriate for Malcolm Rifkind to hand over papers to Professor Christopher Andrew, but not to make them available to Members of Parliament. How can that be justified? I certainly think that those papers should be in the wider public domain.
I probed the Home Secretary about this matter in correspondence. I asked him why Professor Christopher Andrew has those papers if they are secret. If they are not secret, why cannot we see them? I pressed him on the security classification of the papers. He said that there were of great sensitivity. I replied that I am not aware of the security classification of "great sensitivity." If there is such a classification, we should be told about it. If not, what is the security classification of those papers?
I have still not had a response to that question, so perhaps the Minister can give me one. We should not be glibly told that we cannot see those papers: some justification should be given. I understand that there are categories of security classification, but the Home Secretary has failed to tell us what category the papers are in.
The Home Secretary sent me a letter on 15 October, not answering that question but stating:
Mr. Mitrokhin came to believe that the covert activities of the KGB should be made public. In 1992, he approached the UK for help in bringing out and publishing his notes.
That is something of an understatement. I have no way of assessing the courage of Mr. Mitrokhin or other defectors, and I do not want to go into that today. I am not qualified to judge. The Home Secretary has said that they were very courageous, and they probably were. In any case, we all have different views on defectors. However, it should not be suggested that Mr. Mitrokhin put up his hand and said, "I should like to publish my notes." Mr. Mitrokhin came here because he had to get out: things were getting a bit hot for him. That should also be borne in mind in relation to Oleg Gordievsky, who also published some papers.
Let me repeat that I am not judging those people's courage; nevertheless, they had a vested interest. They were making an appeal to the security services here, and there were rich possibilities. I think that there was a propensity to exaggerate, especially when there was the possibility of a financial return on the publication of their books. We must tread cautiously when examining the contents of the documents. We must consider what the motives for defection were, and what has been published by those people or on their behalf.
In his letter to me, the Home Secretary said, in effect, "Awfully sorry, Mackinlay, but the ownership of the archive is not with me, but with Mitrokhin." He also said that he had taken legal advice on ownership. I would like to be humble, but I do not accept that advice; and even if I am wrong, I believe that ownership should be with Her Majesty's Government. That takes us back to Malcolm Rifkind's stewardship of the matter. When a person is about to defect, a price is extracted. That person should be told, "What you bring with you in return for safe asylum"—and, no doubt, some remuneration for future life—"is our property." I find it ridiculous that it should now be suggested that the papers are Mitrokhin's property.
Both Malcolm Rifkind and, to some degree, the present Government are ducking and diving. They are saying, "It is all right for Professor Christopher Andrew to have the

papers, but it is not all right for Members to have them." They will not tell us the secret classification of the archive. It is all wholly unsatisfactory, and to a large extent an affront to Parliament.
I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to reply, but I tabled a parliamentary question asking whether comparable conditions had been placed on Gordievsky and Victor Oschenko when they defected, and in relation to the ownership of any material that they might have published. Was Malcolm Rifkind, or any other Conservative Home Secretary, so generous as to abdicate ownership of documents from those defectors on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? It is an important question.
We know that Malcolm Rifkind imposed some conditions, one of which was wholly unsatisfactory, and was not fulfilled. The Home Secretary referred to it in the House last week, when he told us that Malcolm Rifkind had said that any publication of the papers must not traduce anyone who did not agree to reference being made to them or anyone who had not been convicted. That, however, did not safeguard the reputation of people who are deceased, and have been traduced in the press, with no right of reply, since these matters came to light.
Malcolm Rifkind's stewardship of the matter was highly selective. It has damaged the reputation of men and women who cannot reply, and other names have been bandied about when there has been no satisfactory way of obtaining a remedy. Those who have been traduced, living or dead, have no access to the papers, just as we in the House have no access to them. It is time the facts were revealed, and time that a much fuller, comprehensive statement was made. I do not accept that this is a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is not part of the House of Commons.
Who the heck is Professor Christopher Andrew? I know that he is a distinguished academic who does not just read books—he writes them—but why should he have a superior position over hon. Members and everyone else in the land? It is wholly unsatisfactory.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggests that Professor Christopher Andrew was given the archives, so that he could make a proper historical analysis. That is bunkum. We will get a very partial and selective interpretation, so I hope that the Government will think about the matter again. I hope that they will consider the freedom of information point and generally reflect on the matter much further.
Since I have taken an interest in the matter, I must tell the House that, for the first time, the lock on my house in Tilbury has been tampered with—it has been damaged—and my dustbin has been pinched. I am sure that it is a coincidence—but if anyone is looking for documents, they will be on the shelf in the living room, between the Edward VIII coronation mug and the Neil Kinnock general election victory mug of 1992.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will forgive me if I do not follow him and discuss that aspect of the motion.
The background to the debate is clear. It started three years or so ago, when the Labour party, which was then in opposition, said that, if elected, it would be tough on


crime and on the causes of crime. That was never believable with old Labour and events are rapidly proving that it is not believable with new Labour either.
The outcome of the argy-bargy over numbers between those on the Front Benches was clear. During our time in government, there were, on average, an extra 900 police officers a year. During the present Government's term in office, there has been a decrease of 500 a year.
I was amazed by the Home Secretary. On 2 May 1997, he and many others were saying, "We are in government now. It is all going to be better. We are going to change and to modernise the country." The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was right—that was what they said. They have been in government for two years and the Home Secretary stands there today and says, "It has nothing to do with me, guv. I was not even here." The Prime Minister knows that he is Home Secretary. The House knows that he is Home Secretary. I wonder when he will wake up to the fact that he is Home Secretary with powers to make changes for the common and national good, if he deems them necessary.
Through the comprehensive spending review, we are experiencing the tightest squeeze on police spending in the past 10 years. The record thus far can be easily summed up. Police numbers are going down, while prisoners are being let out earlier than the courts said that they should be and without any court sanction.
The Home Secretary's much vaunted anti-social behaviour orders are nowhere. Throughout the country, the orders were to be the answer and they are not even off the starting blocks. Labour-controlled Peterborough council tells me that it is worried about the European Court of Human Rights implications of the orders, so it may not take any action until the court has pronounced. The issue is being pushed into the long grass of the Parliament after the Parliament after the next one. Furthermore, I read that the Home Office is being told that crime will rise again next year.
What is the Government's reaction to all that? Is it to do something? No, it is to talk. That was the background to the Home Secretary's highly disputed speech at his party conference. He promised an extra 5,000 police; he has rolled back from that today. I am not as gentle as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I think that that speech was deliberately designed to mislead. We happen to know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury warned the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister that they should not go down that road. What was their reaction? They spent hours with special advisers to find a form of words that was technically correct, but designed to mislead. I do not charge the Home Secretary with deliberately using words that were a distortion of the truth. I accuse him of knowing what he was saying, and of working to create an impression. I believe that partly because, as we have learned in the past two years, the essence of new Labour is to say one thing, but to do another.
Nevertheless, the police understood the situation. I could quote many police officers on it, but I shall quote only one. The chairman of the Metropolitan branch of the Police Federation said that the Home Secretary's speech was
a complete betrayal of the people and the police officers of this country".

As the Home Secretary will know, he was not alone in creating that impression, because the Prime Minister shared his view. However, that was a double-edged endorsement. It was given by a man who says that he loves the pound, but is preparing for a single currency; who says that he will fight Britain's corner in Europe, but hands over ever more control to Brussels; who said that he would not increase taxation if elected, but has so far added £50 billion to the tax bill; and who says that national health service waiting lists are decreasing when they are increasing. The support of that calibre of character simply underlines that the Government are happy to say anything that they need to say to persuade people, rather than to do what the people want them to do.
The Home Secretary's policy is having predictable consequences. Rural crime, for example, has increased. As the Home Secretary said today, he spent 18 years in opposition. I had the good fortune of spending the first 18 years of my parliamentary career on the Government Benches. In the past two years, one of the things that I have learned about not being a Minister is that one is more likely to turn from the airy-fairy national discussion and concentrate on what is happening to those whom we represent: our constituents. I should therefore like to speak briefly about Cambridgeshire.
Cambridgeshire has one of the smaller constabularies, which, for operational reasons, is divided into three divisions. I shall tell the Minister about only one of them. It has such a huge funding gap that 15 posts have been frozen. By the end of the financial year, 20 posts in that one division may be frozen. Even if the Home Secretary were telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Cambridgeshire's share of new officers would not right the wrong of 60 or 70 frozen posts.
Cambridgeshire police, in my safe constituency and county, face a bill of £900,000 for policing the millennium. Who will pay that bill, Minister? Will you pay it, or will more police posts have to be frozen, so that police officers cannot patrol the Ortons, Fletton and Peterborough, or Yaxley, Ramsey, Bluntisham and Sawtry in my constituency? Do you realise, Minister, that Government policy is adding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a long-standing hon. Member, and really should use the correct parliamentary language.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Minister realise that the Government are adding to the police service's load? Last weekend, for example, 32 asylum seekers—most of whom dropped off the back of lorries—entered the one police division that I have been describing. In one case, two officers spent seven hours with seven asylum seekers. That represented a loss of 14 hours policing. Cambridgeshire has no idea how much of officers' time is being spent dealing with such matters.
If the asylum seekers have identity cards or means of identification and a name and address to go to, the police take the information and let them go, and that is the end of the immigration process. If they do not, the police spend hours with them, trying to identify them and where they are supposed to go to. They then give the asylum seekers a travel pass and a map of the way to Croydon. That is the asylum system that Ministers have defended to this House today.
Martin Slade of the Immigration Service Union has said:
The point of immigration control is to control immigration. We don't think they're controlling anything.
Nick Hardwick of the Refugee Council has said:
The only crisis is in the Government's asylum system. They should concentrate on sorting out the shambles in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
I want the House to understand that my constituents are suffering because of the incompetence and ineptitude of this Government and of Ministers. It is time for them to stop saying one thing and doing another, and to start doing what they were elected to do. Otherwise, that phrase—which I suspect I coined three years ago—will return to haunt them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I shall confine my remarks to the immigration and asylum part of the motion.
The events in Kent throughout this summer will be familiar to many hon. Members from newspapers and from television, and the difficulties arising from thousands of people seeking asylum have caused considerable distress throughout the county.
Kent and the ports play host to every conceivable nationality—indeed, they are welcomed. However, towns such as Dover and Ramsgate are not used to receiving such large influxes of people from foreign lands—whatever their reason for asylum and however barbaric their torture or persecution. Few would disagree that these people deserve our sympathy, our help and our tolerance. However, if we are to retain that tolerance when people seek sanctuary on our shores, it is vital that a proper structure is in place—a structure that does not place unfair burdens on particular communities, as has happened in Kent, and that quickly rejects those applications that are false.
Parts of Dover and Thanet contain some of the poorest areas within Kent—its objective 2 status renewal is confirmation of that. It does not take a great deal of imagination to work out the consequences of large numbers of asylum seekers entering a community that is not familiar with them and that suffers also from high unemployment. It is an unhealthy blend, and requires careful handling.
There are two tasks for those in positions of responsibility—to put in place a different structure to resolve the difficulties and the burdens that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has put upon Kent and other port areas, and to reimburse the local authorities—and the Government are carrying out both of them. In the meantime, before we can resolve the matters before us with legislation, those concerned should tread carefully indeed and avoid anything that causes unrest.
Sadly, the temptation to gain publicity from this situation has proved too much for some of those in positions of responsibility. Instead of seeking solutions, they have sought the camera and fanned the flames of

unrest. We have seen the consequences of that on the "dross"—a word used by local newspapers. The editor of the Folkestone Herald was warned by Kent police that his editorial in October last year could incite racial violence. It is important for hon. Members to know what local papers have been carrying within Kent at a time of such sensitivity. That editorial last October said:
We want to wash dross down the drain.
Illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, bootleggers and the scum-of-the-earth drug smugglers have targeted our beloved coastline. We are left with the back-draft of a nation's human sewage and no cash to wash it down the drain.
Those are the views of the local newspaper editor. Hon. Members will understand the atmosphere that has been created in the towns of Dover, Folkestone and Thanet, and throughout Kent.
The most outrageous aspect of the situation is that some of those scoring points are from the party that brought us the dreadful Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, which forced people to stay in their port of entry and put the costs on the local council. I worked for Kent social services while the legislation was going through the House. The problems have been brewing for years. To deny that events in Europe and the rest of the world had an effect on the number of people coming into this country is to deny reality.
It is worth noting that, when Kent county council asked for help in 1996–97 because it was incurring a £2 million debt as a direct consequence of the legislation, it was told to stop whingeing and go away. No help was forthcoming from the Kent Conservative Members of Parliament. Why? Because Kent county council was run by a Labour-Liberal administration.
The world has changed now. We have a Conservative administration in Kent and a Labour Home Secretary. Suddenly, Tory Members of Parliament and the Tories on Kent county council have seen the consequences of the disastrous legislation. It is not quite so marvellous after all. I am pleased to say that, in contrast to the Conservative Government, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team have not ignored the difficulties. Unlike the Tories, they have not said "Go away, it's not a problem." They have met many of the costs. Instead of ignoring the issue, they have delivered a one-off payment of £670,000 to Kent police. The chairman of the Kent police authority described the granting of 42 extra police officers as generous.
We are also getting more immigration officers, and the £12 million costs of that were reimbursed to Kent county council. There is a continuing commitment to consider reimbursing the Ashford reception centre and the costs of unaccompanied minors, as well as bringing forward the dispersal programme early before the new legislation comes into force. The Kent Tory administration and Kent Members of Parliament have got what they wanted. The Tories have also got what they wanted: they have been able to play the issue in the media.

Mr. Allan: We are considering the issues of dispersal in other parts of the country, such as Sheffield, where we may be asked to receive people. We have two primary concerns. The first is that we shall need extra support like that given to Kent, which the hon. Gentleman has described, if we are not to suffer community relations problems. The second is the comments that he has referred


to, which give the impression that other parts of the country are being asked to take incredibly difficult and dangerous people who are no longer wanted in Dover and Kent. It is counterproductive for people to make such negative comments.

Mr. Shaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said before, the dispersal programme is right, but it needs to be carefully managed. It is important that the Home Office works closely with local authorities to ensure that it is successful. It is the right policy. The burden should not fall only on particular communities.
The Tories in Kent know a good excuse when they see one. Despite the best social services budget in years, with a 6 per cent. increase on the standard spending assessment, they are blaming the cost of dealing with asylum seekers for their decision to put up the cost of old people's meals on wheels. What a cynical attempt to use a problem that they created to cause fear among elderly people. That increase in cost comes to £18,000. At the same time, they are spending £5 million on new computers and a new call centre. We can see where their priorities lie.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the listening ear that he has provided. However, the Government are about more than just listening; they have provided real resources. I have lived in Kent all my life, but never before have I witnessed such scenes of intolerance and violence as I saw in the ports and elsewhere last summer, and I hope that I never see them again. It is our responsibility to do everything that we can to handle the delicate situation. In a letter to the Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then responsible for immigration, the Tory leader of Kent county council said that there was a tinderbox atmosphere in the port towns. I agreed with him but, sadly, he felt the need to release the letter to the press. A couple of weeks later, there were attacks in Dover. He added to the problems rather than seeking solutions.
The performance of the Tories in dealing with the matter has been a disgrace. They passed the 1996 Act and put the burdens on Kent and now they are blaming the Government. We welcome the additional resources and we look forward to the new legislation to lift the burden on areas of Kent.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and I have spoken together about Kent from time to time. We were both brought up in the county, although in different eras, I suspect. I hope that he will bear it in mind that, when there is uncontrolled immigration, the first people who suffer tension and prejudice are not those such as he or I, living in relatively leafy towns and suburbs, but British born and bred ethnic minorities.
This short debate covers a wide range of Home Office responsibilities, which have in common the indelible mark of the Government's failure to fulfil their promises to the electorate, their failure to make their policies work and their failure to sustain the services and standards that they criticised so stridently when they were in opposition.
The fall in police numbers and the slump in police morale this year and last year vividly illustrate the deficit between Labour's pre-election boasts and its performance

in government. Large numbers of police officers are leaving the service and the pattern is the same throughout the country. The Police Federation has been unable to conceal its dismay at the undisguised hostility of the Macpherson report, the shortfall in promised funding, the betrayal of the Blakelock family, the manipulation of recruitment statistics and the creeping disease of political correctness that hampers authority. No wonder that crime is rising under a Government insensitive to victims, muddled about practical crime prevention measures and slow to act on the causes of crime.
On asylum seekers, the Government are compounding a growing and acute problem. I do not doubt that the Home Office will continue to honour the Geneva convention and will try at the same time to use the fair but effective means at its disposal of ruling out the large number of applicants who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution, but the scale of the influx, genuine or bogus, will not diminish as migration from eastern to western Europe continues unchecked.
The Government are compounding the problem in three ways. First, as I have said in the House before, the Home Office and the Treasury should recognise that the existence of a long asylum queue, with all the delays that that entails, is the biggest attraction for others to arrive here and join the queue. The several hundred million pounds that Ministers have spoken about will not resolve the problem. To massage numbers from the list by awarding exceptional leave to remain status and through other devices is not the answer. That did not happen in the first half of the previous Parliament, as one Minister wrongly claimed during the summer recess. To process the whole queue fairly but quickly would cost a great deal more in the short run but, once it was done, the repeated annual savings would be much larger than the once-and-for-all processing cost.
Secondly, the no-doubt-genuine aspirations of the Government's new legislation will soon be undermined if the appeal procedures are not conducted as swiftly in practice as Ministers have claimed theoretically will be the case. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 had provisions for a seven-day determination of manifestly unfounded applications, but that foundered when the Lord Chancellor's Department refused to add enough extra adjudicators to process the appeals within the prescribed timetable. That failure by the Lord Chancellor's Department could have been remedied, but it was overlooked in the second half of the previous Parliament, and has—unwisely, in my view—been disregarded by the present Home Secretary.
Thirdly, the European Union cross-pillar and comprehensive approach to asylum, to which the Government too readily subscribe, is turning attention away from a basic principle of the Geneva convention that, because of our island geography, is advantageous to the United Kingdom. The convention requires that asylum seekers must apply in the first safe country that they reach—so all the applicants who arrive in the United Kingdom via continental Europe should, by definition, be returned to whichever other convention country they first reached. Even if they have a well-founded fear of persecution, their cases are manifestly unfounded in the United Kingdom, because they should have been considered elsewhere. That is the way to respond fairly and properly to the convention.
Immigration control is similarly affected, as events in Tampere showed, by the European Commission's plans to absorb more third-pillar interior and justice policies within treaty competence. Rights of appeal to the European Court on immigration cases are the thin end of the wedge.
A greater threat to the integrity of our controls comes from the Commission's desire that a standard format European visit visa, issued, say, by a Greek entry clearance officer, should have some legitimacy when presented to an immigration officer at a British port of entry.
As Ministers know, I applauded the Government for having kept our border controls. However, the Commission will not rest until it has found other ways in which to envelop United Kingdom immigration controls within treaty competence. No one should doubt that, with EU enlargement, the already porous external frontiers will grow more porous still, as they extend into central and eastern Europe.
Finally, there is the Government's handling of the revelations in the Mitrokhin archive. The most disturbing aspect of that bizarre episode is the fact that the Security Service took it upon itself to decide whether the material provided sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution with a realistic chance of success. Surely that was for Ministers, the Law Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service, not the unaccountable Security Service, to decide.
In a recent letter to the Home Secretary, I said that I believed strongly in our constitutional monarchy and in a framework of authority that promotes the rule of law and safeguards genuine national interests, but that I abhorred the abuse of power. The Security Service is virtually immune from the law, and has no legal status, but it can break and enter, bug and tap telephones under the Royal Prerogative. It communicates as it pleases with a parliamentary Committee that cannot even report to Parliament, and that has to be content with arbitrary deletions from what it is told.
It is astonishing that the Government, who are allegedly committed to freedom of information and human rights, should fail to impose accountability on the secret service for its high-handed decisions about how to deal with the Mitrokhin archive. In 1988, Sir John Donaldson, then Master of the Rolls, said:
It is silly for us to sit here and say that the security service is obliged to follow the letter of the law. It isn't real".
That still applies today.
Richard Tomlinson, who helped to bring the Mitrokhin files to the west, is pursued. David Shayler, who has had the temerity to criticise managerial inefficiency in the service, is hounded. However, spies whose persistent treachery has now been exposed by Mitrokhin were to be left alone without reference to the Law Officers or the Crown Prosecution Service.
The mishandling of the Mitrokhin archive, and the Government's failure to hold the Security Service accountable, are yet another example of the Labour Government's inability to put their promises into practice.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: When I returned to the House following the summer recess, one of the first things I noticed was the splendid new green annunciator

screens that now hang half way across the Chamber on each side. I wondered what they were for, but now I know: they are large enough to cope with the titles of Opposition day motions. The subject of the debate was rather more succinctly expressed by Madam Speaker, who simply introduced it as "general Home Office matters".
I realised that the Tories could not describe the subject in those words because if they said that the debate was about general Home Office matters, that would put the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in a difficult position. Because of the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, she is not allowed to speak on all Home Office matters. Now I understand why our debates have such long titles, and why we need such large screens.
I intend to speak only about police numbers, but first I must say briefly what a delight it is to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). I worked for a short time for a Member of the previous Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman was an immigration Minister. He was an extremely effective and good one, and we always thought that he was fair. All Members should take seriously the comments that he makes on such matters in the House—I am sure that they will.
I want to speak about police numbers because I am one of the two Members—the other is a Liberal Democrat Member, whose constituency escapes me for the moment—who chaired police authorities before we entered the House.

Mr. Allan: Somerton and Frome.

Mr. Cawsey: Yes, I meant the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
I chaired the Humberside police authority from 1993 to 1997, which was a key time in the history of police authorities. When I first became the chair, our authority was an integral part of local government. Then came the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, and I was chair for the transitional period. The authority finally broke into full independence as the 1997 general election approached.
Listening to some of the comments in the debate, it strikes me that although police authorities, local authorities and police services are well aware of the effect of the changes, and their impact on powers and responsibilities, despite the fact that the Act originated from this building the House seems full of Members who have no understanding, or little understanding, of what has changed. Perhaps they do not want to understand.
I was not always a complete and utter fan of the 1994 Act when it was first drafted, but, due to many efforts in this House and in the other place, it turned out to be a fairly good and robust piece of legislation. For many years before it was enacted, I, and many other chairs of police authorities, had argued strongly that we wanted greater independence for police authorities and chief constables to decide establishments and police numbers for themselves, taking into account what they believed were the priorities for their areas, and the other things that they could spend money on, such as greater civilianisation, more training or more equipment. We were therefore pleased when the Act was passed. However, it had a knock-on effect, in that the ability of any Home Secretary—it does not matter any more of what political colour—to predict police numbers


is now not simply limited, but non-existent. Home Secretaries no longer have that power. It would be much better if we at least started from that point, and accepted that fact.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who now speaks for the Liberals on such matters, said that he did not think that the Home Secretary could have it both ways, by saying that he was not responsible when police authorities employed fewer officers, but that he was responsible when numbers went up. On the contrary, not only can my right hon. Friend have it both ways, that is the only way to explain the present position. He has no control over decisions that police authorities and chief constables make about their own establishments. If he wants to increase police numbers, all that he can do is to ring fence a sum of money and say, "I am willing to give you this money only if you spend it for that purpose." Whether we think that that is a good or a bad thing, that is the reality; that is the law.
I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that he hoped that we were not going to go back to the time when establishments were all centralised and decided in Westminster and Whitehall. That would be a retrograde step. For instance, in Humberside during my chairmanship we decided to buy a police helicopter. We covered a large rural area as well as the cities of Hull, Scunthorpe and Grimsby, and a helicopter would, in our opinion, be a good way of fighting crime and giving us fast access, especially to the rural parts of the county, in all kinds of circumstances. The helicopter has proved a great success, but let us not kid ourselves—it is extremely expensive to buy and run, and the money that we spend on it has had an impact on the number of officers that we can recruit.
We acquired the helicopter as part of a deal offered by the previous Government, whereby half the cost would be paid if we made an application. That was a generous offer—we took it and we got our helicopter. However, by doing that and following the policies of the Government of the day, there was an impact on the number of officers that we could recruit.
The idea that somehow the Home Secretary can be personally responsible for all such decisions is not credible, and it is not true. Furthermore, that would not even be desirable. Having funded the police authorities, we should allow them and their chief constables to write their own policing plans, set their priorities and decide for themselves how many officers, how many civilians, what equipment and what training would be right for their areas.
Conservative Members have claimed that when they were in power there were more constables. That is true, because within the freedom and flexibility that police authorities now have they have taken a decision to push down the rank structure. There are now many fewer superintendents and more constables. That is right and proper, because more constables can perform more active duties on the beat.
Civilianisation has also had an impact. Scenes of crime officers used to have to be police officers, but there is no reason why that should be the case, and many forces now have civilian scenes of crime officers and many other jobs have passed to civilians. In the end, whether the Government keep their promises of more officers on the

beat cannot be judged only by how many police officers there are—the issue is the rank of those officers, what they do and what infrastructure is provided around them.
Special officers have been mentioned, and it is right to say that they make a tremendous addition to the resources of a local police force. However, I urge caution in judging how well a force is doing on the bare numbers. Specials are volunteers and they work the hours that they wish to work. In other words, a small number of special constables may make a bigger contribution to a police force because they are able to put in more hours. Therefore, I warn the House against some of the simplistic judgments that we have heard today.
The shadow Home Secretary spoke about reversing the decline and said that however many police officers were left, she would return the numbers to what they were when we came to power. I have mentioned the impotence of Home Secretaries under the legislation, so that promise is not deliverable. Even if the Home Secretary wanted to increase recruitment by a certain amount, he has no control over the decisions that police authorities and chief constables make about replacing officers who leave. Unless that power is re-centralised, the promise is unachievable. It may be that the shadow Home Secretary intended to announce by the back door that she would re-centralise that power, but I hope not because that would be a retrograde step.
Across the country, local authorities are dealing with community safety and crime reduction with great success on the back of the Morgan report, which was provided for the previous Government but never implemented. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 means that the report is being implemented and partnerships are being formed between the police, local authorities, the business sector and the voluntary sector. That is making a big difference. We need to have proper debates about how to achieve community safety and crime reduction—the real issues—instead of point scoring.
I have had the great honour of working with hundreds of police officers with Humberside police, and the one thing that really cheeses off police officers is debates like this, in which their work is undervalued and we do not consider what should be done to support them. The solution is not as simple as the numbers: it involves money, resources, priorities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: As always in Home Office debates, I declare an interest as an acting recorder of the Crown court, a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and a founder and first chairman of the Immigration Advisory Service. I wish to address the issue of asylum and immigration, and in doing so it is important to use language that is not emotive. I shall try to be constructive and courteous while, at the same time, trying to identify the problem that faces the country and the Government.
The newspapers today contained reports of record numbers of people seeking asylum in this country. Total asylum seeker numbers for 1999 have already exceeded applications for the whole of the previous year. It is anticipated that by the end of this year there may be 70,000 applications for asylum, plus dependants. August and September both had record numbers—more


than 7,000—of applications. That creates a tremendous strain on the adjudication and courts service which has to hear the applications.
The Home Office faces a crisis in the backlog of asylum and immigration cases that still await decision. In March, the backlog stood at 125,000; by June, it had risen to 140,000—today, it is just over 150,000, and by the end of the year, on present trends, it will reach more than 160,000. That is a huge burden on the Home Office and the resources of this country.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to respond to the shameful attack by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on the councillors, editors and people of Kent. Does my hon. Friend agree that Kent needs a reduction in the number of asylum seekers, as was achieved in the last year of the previous Government, and not the enormous increases that he has just described?

Mr. Malins: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in that area. He has shown great devotion to his duty to his constituents, and he has been in his place throughout the debate today.
Why is the backlog of asylum and immigration cases so big? It is because decisions are being made at half the rate at which new applications are made. It is no good continuing with a system that makes decisions so slowly. This morning, at the meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, I put some straight questions to the Home Secretary. I said, "Home Secretary, there were 7,300 applications for asylum in September. How soon will their cases be heard? How soon will the results of those cases and any appeals be known? How soon will those who fail in their applications be removed?" The Home Secretary could not answer, and nor could the official who accompanied him.
That is the scale of the problem that faces the country, and the Home Office is not getting to grips with it. It has let the problem, which it admittedly inherited from the previous Government, get worse and worse. Incidentally, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) for the outstanding work that he did as an immigration Minister in the previous Government.
The Government are not doing enough and the Home Office is in chaos. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon faces impossible queues. Telephones go unanswered and the computer system is in chaos. In my surgeries on Friday nights in Woking—which has a large, settled ethnic community—I see many constituents with ongoing cases who come to me in despair because their correspondence and telephone calls are never dealt with. They tell me, and I tell the House, that the Home Office appears to the communities outside the House to have lost its grip on the problem.
The Home Office needs to decide asylum and immigration applications quickly. In Croydon, the 28 teams of 16 people each are doing their best to decide the cases, but more money may be necessary and may save time in the long run. More money now may lead us to a system that would be in the better interests of those many genuine cases who are being elbowed aside by those

who have less claim. Therefore, we should decide cases fast and hear appeals quickly. There is no reason why they should not be heard quickly and why decisions should not be made thereafter. If it is decided that the appeal has failed and someone has to be removed—remove them fast. The slower the system, the worse the problem will get. Nothing that the Home Office said this afternoon or the Home Secretary said this morning gives me any reason to believe that the system will do anything save slow down even more.
Finally, what of the problem of those tens of thousands of people whose immigration or asylum applications have been lost all the way down the line and who are out there in the community? Many thousands of asylum applicants have lost all contact with the Home Office. That is not good enough. In this modern computerised age, this Home Office ought to be able to get to grips with retrieval. Those people who should not be here should be taken to account and removed. One adjudicator told me recently, "It is ludicrous that I hear appeal after appeal in the certain knowledge that even if the appeal fails all the way up the line, the applicant will go to ground and stay in this country for ever."
The current situation will not do. The many thousands of people in the ethnic communities in this country recognise that the Government have lost their grip on all matters connected with asylum and immigration. They have come out with a good line, but they have not acted and thought through the problem properly. They may need more money or resources. If the House finds in six months that the list of those waiting for an initial determination in an asylum or other immigration case is getting longer, it will be a clear sign that the Government are continuing to fail.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spelled out why the total number of asylum seekers coming into the country has increased, and why many of them are settling at their ports of entry due to the changes in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I shall concentrate on some of the difficulties that this has caused my constituents.
Until 1996–97, although about 21 million passengers travelled through Dover every year, very few stayed in the port. Few asylum seekers who passed through settled in Dover because the legislation was very different. At that time, we had an ethnic minority of less than 0.6 per cent., which was one of the smallest in the country.
In the past few years, as the changes introduced by the Conservatives took effect, asylum seekers have been required to claim in the port of Dover. Therefore, the numbers started to increase. For sensible and practical reasons—practical in the short term—the county council, which is picking up the bill, and Dover district council, which is settling the housing, housed those people in inexpensive accommodation in bed-and-breakfast areas close to the port. Large numbers of asylum seekers were concentrated in one small area of the town—an area that is not prosperous.
The early settlers who came across in large numbers in 1997 were mostly Slovakian Romany people. The local perception was that they were not fleeing from oppression—certainly not from state oppression or tyranny—and were not genuine claimants.
Given that background, social tensions started to get worse. They were badly exacerbated by some of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). The hostile comments in one local newspaper, the Dover Express, and the attacks of editor Nick Hudson on asylum seekers in his editorials raised tension and created an inflammatory atmosphere. He used the terms "human sewage" and "dross" in referring to asylum seekers. He published stories that most respectable newspapers would flush down the sink, puffing them up as story of the week, with headings like, "The good ship DSS Scrounger docks at Dover" and with many pejorative remarks. Those stories almost gave some legitimacy to the feeling of local people that they were being put on and having a hard time, or that they were not being dealt with fairly. His language was really hostile.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford could have told the House that senior members of the Kent police called in that same editor twice because of the language that he was using and the atmosphere that he was creating with his newspaper. The Dover Express is one of a number of local newspapers, but it stands alone in terms of that coverage. It changed its response to asylum seekers only when that editor took control. Many of the reporters have been at the paper a long time and still have the respect of the community, although I know that they have some problems.
Apart from being called in by the police, the Press Complaints Commission judged that the editor's coverage was likely to incite racial violence. Just this week, local churches in Dover put together a petition, which has been mentioned from the pulpits, entitled, "Christians against the Dover Express". It was handed in to the local paper last week. The police in Kent, the Press Complaints Commission and the local churches all say that that coverage is exacerbating the problems and adding to our difficulties.
Something else that added to our difficulties was the unwelcome intervention of the shadow Home Secretary in the summer. When we were trying to heal wounds, asylum support groups were coming in, the police were explaining the situation to the community and we were looking for calm, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) came posturing and pirouetting into Pencester gardens, saying all sorts of silly and spurious things—some of her remarks were inflammatory. On numerous occasions, she asked why the Government did not do something and why the Home Secretary had not acted.
The reality is that most of our problems were due to the large numbers of asylum seekers. What the right hon. Lady should have known—perhaps she did know—was that Kent county council could move asylum seekers who wished to go outside Dover and Kent. What she should have known, but did not tell the newspapers, was that months before the violence in Pencester gardens, the council had encouraged more than 100 asylum seekers to move away voluntarily. The numbers had started to decrease, but that did not suit the right hon. Lady's agenda on that day.
Today, the situation in Dover is much calmer. The police are taking appropriate action—not merely enforcement but liaison work. They are getting into the community and talking to both sides. A liaison officer is working with Kent county council and Dover district council, and talking to local people, especially in the hot

spots. Life is returning to normal. The last figures that I have seen show that the number of asylum seekers in the area has dropped from 1,000 or more to less than 600.
In the remaining time, I must mention the good news stories in Dover—the stories behind all those headlines, which have been blown up and exaggerated by some Conservative Members. Local groups within the churches and voluntary asylum support groups have joined together into a network of asylum support without much outside funding and without any direct advantage to themselves. In a difficult situation, they have been working with asylum seekers and their families, in particular with the children, to give them some sort of welcome and to help integrate them into the community.
I am convinced that the practical changes in the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which I hope will soon become an Act, will deal with nearly all the problems that I have identified in Dover. The large numbers of asylum seekers can be reduced through sensible and sensitive dispersal, and Dover's attractiveness to asylum seekers can be removed by reducing the cash benefits to sensible support level. I welcome also those other provisions in the Bill that will give further protection to Dover.
I shall conclude my remarks with the message that there is a mixture of stories to be told about Dover, and that the hostility of one particular newspaper means that it will be very difficult to return matters to the way they were before 1996.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), with whom I share some sense of being in the front line when it comes to constituency asylum problems, and I acknowledge the experience with which he spoke. I shall be brief, in the hope that there will be time for a contribution from at least one other colleague.
Since the sad death of the late Alan Clark, I have become the only Conservative Member of Parliament in the country with an inner-city constituency. This debate is very germane to my constituency, which has a heavy crime rate because of the number of day visitors. It also has a continuing involvement with asylum seekers, given that 15 per cent. of the households in Westminster are now not on the electoral register.
I shall begin with a brief word about the police. This is the season in which amenity societies and residents associations in Westminster have their annual or general meetings. A feature of those meetings is the patient replies from the police that there is a limit to what they can achieve, given the fall in police numbers with which they have had to cope.
I witnessed only one event associated with last week's visit by the Chinese President. That was at Guildhall, where I thought that the City of London police handled the protesters extremely well, and gave them ample opportunity to make their views known to the President of China.
I wish to concentrate on asylum seekers. I think that it is still reasonable to describe the situation as a shambles. I declare an interest, in that I am a vice-chairman of the all-party refugees group.
One index of a shambles is that the new Minister of State at the Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), had to be diverted from


the Financial Services and Markets Bill, an extremely important piece of legislation, to take over responsibility for asylum seekers from the Under-Secretary previously in charge, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). That decision was made by the Prime Minister: I can tell the House that the Royal Navy manual states, with regard to typhoons, that the first evidence of an approaching typhoon is a general sense on the part of the captain that all is not well.
A second index of a shambles is that, six months after the Home Secretary's very welcome letter telling colleagues that the very worst was over in the immigration service, lawyers daily release cases into my lap because they cannot get answers, in writing or by telephone, from the Home Office. Frankly, that worries me, because it looks as though a two-tier immigration service may be developing, in which those who can afford lawyers may be able, through Members of Parliament, to secure answers more quickly than other constituents.
Although I acknowledge that a huge number of the latter are still writing to me too, I have a specific question for the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), whom I congratulate on his promotion. When he winds up the debate, will he say whether constituents who write in to the Home Office through Members of Parliament—either directly or through their lawyers—receive quicker responses than those who do not? Ideally, Members of Parliament should intervene in such matters only exceptionally, rather than as a matter of course.
My question is especially important in the context of travel documents. Constituents' letters about those documents are now invariably accompanied by details of urgent family reasons for travelling. Those reasons include medical treatment, car crashes or even imminent death. The consistency of those rationales suggest that travel document requests are now being taken out of order, and that word has gone out on the grapevine that pressing family reasons are, in the Home Office's eyes, a good each-way bet.
By and large, and to its credit, the Home Office has not allowed queue-jumping to occur in the naturalisation procedure. Such queue-jumping always disadvantages the rest of the queue. However, I would welcome a statement of policy on travel document practices. It is currently taking the travel document section more than 60 days even to acknowledge an application's arrival. Even then, the accompanying statement that it may take at least six months to resolve the application does not indicate whether the six-month period starts with the date of application or with the acknowledgement of the application. That makes travel planning still more difficult.
However, what I ask for most of all is a clear statement of the detail of the backlog facing the immigration service. I can see that the service might be crying out for a period of peace and quiet in which staff can get on with sorting out that backlog. It would be much easier for some of us to afford the service that relief and respite if we had a much clearer idea of the present policies, procedures and situation that we could advance to our desperate and bewildered constituents. Home Office officials are personally very courteous to me. I should like to respond to them in kind, if they would give me the tools to do so.

Mr. John Greenway: I begin by welcoming to his new job the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who I assume will be winding up the debate. My colleagues and I are looking forward to debating police matters and other issues with him.
This debate has again revealed the Home Secretary as a master of equivocation and obfuscation. In one of his least convincing performances, he failed today to answer any of the key questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I shall repeat those questions for the benefit of the House.
Will there be 5,000 more police officers than there are now in 2002, or 2003? If not, will there be more officers than there are now, or fewer? How many more or fewer officers will there be?
Is it true that the new police radio project will cost £1.5 billion? How will that project be paid for? How much extra are the Home Secretary and his Department giving police authorities? Is the amount merely the £50 million that the Home Secretary announced to the Labour party conference, or will more money be announced later? Will the shortfall have an impact on the ability of police authorities to recruit officers? Police authorities up and down the country say that it will.
Does the Home Secretary agree that there are significantly more asylum seekers now than when he took office?

Mr. James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that the shortfall has affected some areas more severely than others? In Barnet and Hertsmere, for example, we have lost 60 of the 285 officers that we had in 1997. That fall of 20 per cent. has left our force hamstrung.

Mr. Greenway: There will not be time for many interventions, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that one. It illustrates exactly what is happening throughout the country. The cost of paying for the radio project imposed by the Home Office is already impacting badly on police recruitment plans.
I return now to the question of asylum seekers. Does the Home Secretary agree that there are significantly more of them now than when he took office, and that there is a backlog of 90,000 cases? Is it true that mail at the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office has remained unopened since July? Is it true that only 1,800 of the 52,000 telephone calls made to the department in September were answered?
Did any Government Department give instructions to the police in connection with the demonstrations during the visit by the President of China? Is the Home Secretary aware of what appeared in last weekend's edition of The Sunday Times? The newspaper alleged that
a senior Metropolitan police officer said last week that his colleagues had been instructed by the Foreign Office to adopt a 'zero-tolerance' approach to prevent causing offence during President Jiang's four-day visit. 'If the minutes of meetings between police and Foreign Office officials are made public, the Government is going to have egg on its face,' the officer said.
Is that true? When will the Government come clean about just what instructions were given?
The Home Secretary failed to answer any of those important questions. The extent to which he was floundering was made evident when he prayed in aid rail privatisation, the Child Support Agency, BSE, and even the matter of arms to Iraq. He seemed also to suggest that the excellent web site of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was the cause of his embarrassment. While the debate has gone on, we have managed to find the right hon. Gentleman's own web site. Actually, we first found a web site maintained by an unofficial fan club at the university of York. We found the "Jack Straw Fan Club Home Page", which notes, "We love Jack Straw", and adds:
I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
The official web site of the Home Secretary lists, among other things, the right hon. Gentleman's recreations:
walking, music, cooking puddings and supporting Blackburn Rovers.
That is hardly as good as my right hon. Friend's excellent web site. The right hon. Gentleman will be walking back to the Opposition Benches when he has faced the music at the next election. The proof of his pudding is in the eating; it is going down horribly with the police service, just as Blackburn Rovers went down at the end of last season.
Try as he may, the Home Secretary cannot camouflage serious crises in the key areas for which he is responsible. Police numbers are falling at an ever faster rate. Asylum seekers are at record numbers. There is a shambles in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, with a record backlog of unsettled cases. We have yet to hear a plausible—let alone a complete—explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's handling of the Mitrokhin spy archive and related matters.
We have heard today a complete abdication of responsibility for the problems in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. His revised explanations to the Select Committee on Home Affairs of police recruitment plans reveal that he has lost all credibility as regards any information that he gives on police numbers. The power of Opposition day debates is truly amazing. Their effect is astonishing. Some 4,000 more police recruits are planned today than were yesterday. Chief constables and communities up and down the land will be praying for more Tory Opposition days in the months to come when they see police numbers beginning to fall.
The Home Secretary has never explained how the 11,000 recruits already planned were calculated. Now he tells us the figure was 15,000. What was the original figure on which he based his request for more money? Was it 11,000, or was it 15,000? How can anyone have confidence that he has any idea of the true figure? Chief constables know the figures, and so do police authorities and the Police Federation. The numbers being recruited are being frozen for authorities throughout the country. Numbers are falling as a result. Today's announcement confuses the issue rather than clarifying it. The sudden conjuring up of 4,000 more recruits insults the intelligence of the electorate and the police service.
We have previously drawn attention to the problems of police recruitment in the police grant debate and July's debate on the police in London. Our concerns were dismissed as alarmist, but we can see now that the Home Secretary was himself alarmed at the trend on police numbers. Behind the scenes, he was asking for more

money. We welcome that, and we welcome the recognition—at long last—that a serious problem had to be resolved. However, what angers the police and increasingly appals the public is that an initiative intended to shore up police manpower was portrayed as an initiative to recruit 5,000 extra police officers—5,000 more than now.
That was no unintended or mistaken misinterpretation of the Home Secretary's announcement. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury could see what was up, when he wrote that if the Home Secretary promised 5,000 extra—that is additional—officers, the Chief Secretary would end up having to find the money to pay for them. That is why the Home Secretary was forced to clear his announcement. What is even more telling is the tone of the Chief Secretary's reported remark:
I will not countenance a further reserve claim".
What a telling message that is to the police service. Some £35 million is being provided for police recruitment, and £50 million for radios that cost £1.5 billion. The police can expect no more help. There was absolute silence on the growing crisis of funding police pensions. We must conclude that the crisis will only get worse.
In recent days, there has been no better example of the effect of all that on policing than the comment of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, who told the Home Secretary last Thursday that he had insufficient manpower even to cover murder inquiries. We have seen a complete abdication of responsibility by the Home Secretary today in his failure to say what he intends to do about these crises.
The Home Secretary has been caught redhanded, but he is not alone in his conspiracy to hoodwink the voters. The Prime Minister was clearly a willing accomplice. He was offered the chance to protest his innocence at the Dispatch Box last week, but he perpetuated the hoax, telling my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague):
Yes, there will be 5,000 extra police officers."—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 433.]
One must admire him for standing by a mate who has been caught, but he could, in truth, do little else. The Prime Minister was well aware of what was going on, and he had to stand by his Jack or give him the sack.
The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary also knew that Labour spin doctors were busy selling the story to the media that there would be 5,000 extra police. Perhaps that is why there was no attempt to correct the story. Today's revelation does nothing to rectify the situation. The penny is beginning to drop in the public mind. They see the thin blue line getting thinner, and they remember that new Labour claimed it would be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. The public remember the Labour manifesto promise that the police had Labour's strong support. They remember the Home Secretary saying that he would get 5,000 more police. They will recognise all too well that every one of those promises has been broken.
The public will also recall that the Prime Minister told the country that there would be no more lies and no more broken promises. What a shambles. The public will take their revenge at the ballot box.
The Government promised more police, but they are supervising the biggest fall in police numbers in living memory and the complete erosion of police morale.


The Government said that they had secured the United Kingdom's borders, but they have presided over the biggest influx of asylum seekers that we have ever experienced. The Government embarked on a modernisation programme that has left the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in complete disarray. When faced with the revelation of the most serious spy scandal in a generation, the Government dithered and prevaricated, entirely failing to understand the seriousness of the situation or to report it to the House.
New Labour's slipshod stewardship of policing, immigration and national security are just the latest in a catalogue of mistakes and incompetence. Such mismanagement demands that the House register the strongest possible reprimand. I urge hon. Members on both sides to do so by voting for our motion.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his courteous welcome to me, which I appreciated. In his speech, his only palpable hit was on the Home Secretary's support for Blackburn Rovers football club; the whole House will be aware that Norwich City's tremendous victory over Bolton—the team supported by the Chief Whip—took us above Blackburn in the first division, and I am very glad about that.
I welcome this debate. It is an opportunity for the Government to set out their case on the various issues that have been raised. I had hoped that it would be an opportunity for the Opposition to set out their policies on the issues, but I regret that yet again the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) showed herself to be more of a rent-a-quote and an unguided missile than a serious proponent of alternative policies. She is more of an embarrassment to her party leadership, as demonstrated on clause 118 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill—currently in the House of Lords—than a positive part of the Opposition team. Perhaps that is why there was no crime pledge in the Conservative list of five commonsense pledges presented at the Conservative party conference. Perhaps that is why today the right hon. Lady has tabled a compendium resolution—or as a friend of mine said, a kitchen-sink resolution. It does not mention the major progress that has been made in the youth justice system and the criminal justice system towards meeting the pledges that we made.
I shall deal with the three issues that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has identified. The first is that of cold-war spies, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) spoke. There is always good theatre to be had about such issues, but in truth some serious issues need to be looked at properly in considering the future of our country following the cold war and in seeking proper accountability for our security services.
The Government's agenda is public and clear. We have set out absolutely the need to put everything on a proper basis. I pay tribute to the Conservative Government. Their legislation on the matter and the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee acknowledged the need to put these things on a proper footing and to have

serious debate on the issues, and that is what is happening. All parties in the political process have to work together. I am sure that that is the right way to do it. We should eschew cheap political theatre of the type that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald wants and focus on cleaning up the whole system.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary paid tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and his committee. The all-party approach of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is an attempt to address the issues in a proper way. That is the right way to proceed. It is not cheap posturing of the kind indulged in by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock raised some significant points. The Government must take seriously what he had to say when they examine carefully the conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee once it has considered the issue in the round.
The second issue is asylum seekers and immigration control. It is striking that five hon. Members raised it this afternoon: my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). It is no secret that the turmoil in Europe at the end of the cold war, especially in the former Yugoslavia, has massively increased the problems. That was acknowledged by some hon. Members today. It is a real situation that affects not only Britain but every country in Europe. It is why we dealt in 1988 with 4,000 asylum applications a year and with 45,000 last year.
Reorganisation of the immigration and nationality department was long overdue. Investment should have been made to resolve the problems in the past, but it has been down to us to sort out the mess that we inherited. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the stewardship of the Tories under the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made the situation far worse. They left thousands of asylum seekers to pick up the tab. They established the unfair and arbitrary white list. They failed to tackle unscrupulous so-called immigration advisers. They did nothing whatever to speed up the process of applying for asylum.
I place on record my appreciation of the comments made by the hon. Member for Woking. He acknowledged that the Government inherited serious problems on asylum and immigration. That was an honest and correct thing for him to say, and I am glad that he had the courtesy to do so.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made some serious points. We have invested an extra £120 million over three years. We are taking forward a range of initiatives to improve productivity, develop new and speedier working methods, streamline procedures for dealing with general casework and thoroughly reappraise the IT system. We are recruiting an extra 340 staff in Croydon and we have plans to recruit a further 200 in Croydon and 85 in Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman was right to identify the need to speed up decisions. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the


Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), is working exceptionally hard to achieve change in precisely the way that is needed and should have been effected a long time ago.
I must make reference to the race card, which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised. We could not have had a clearer illustration of what is at stake than in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Dover. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said in 1995, having been head of research at Conservative central office:
Immigration was an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign. It played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt.
Those were not my words but the words of the former Tory strategist who is now the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover put the issue straightforwardly.
We are making progress on asylum and immigration. My Home Office colleagues and I acknowledge the immense task that needs to be undertaken. Incidentally, at the G8 conference on organised crime last week we secured international agreement to inhibit trafficking in illegal immigrants throughout the world. That is an example of the international co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary moved forward at the EU summit at Tampere. Many Opposition Members would eschew that co-operation.
The last issue that the Opposition raised was the police. It is a shame that not once has any credit been given to the Government for the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the establishment of local crime reduction partnerships up and down the country. The Act is described by many chief constables to me as the best legislation that any Government have introduced to inhibit and reduce crime in any area directly. Building a genuine partnership between all agencies is at the core of our approach.
Another element of our approach is recognition of the fantastic benefits that technology can provide. We are focusing on intelligence-led policing, the use of DNA and the public service radio communications scheme, which has been described. A total of £1.5 billion has been identified for a public finance initiative for the scheme and we are allocating more money to take it forward. Forces want the scheme because they want to communicate with each other and develop in an effective way. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced earlier this year a commitment on DNA which will massively increase our ability to use it to solve crimes.
I was interested in the remarks made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) about police numbers. I will take him through the ups and downs of police numbers in the past eight or nine years so that the House has them fully on the record, given his absurd claim of an average increase of whatever it was he said. The figures are as follows: 1991–92, plus 132; 1992–93, plus 663; 1993–94, minus 393; 1994–95, minus 675; 1995–96, minus 321—this was all under the Conservatives—1996–97, plus 257; 1997–98, minus 344; and 1998–99, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, minus 715. Those figures do not show a strong record for the Conservative Government. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend made his announcement. He was right to do so and to take it forward.
The Conservatives should support the process of modernisation and change. They should have initiated it when they were in office, but they did not. The country needs a modern, effective, accountable police service that focuses its efforts in partnership with others on reducing crime. That is what the Government want and what the Government will deliver.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 371.

Division No. 276]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heald, Oliver


Amess, David
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Horam, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Blunt, Crispin
Jenkin, Bernard


Body, Sir Richard
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Brady, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brazier, Julian
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Butterfill, John
Lidington, David


Cash, William
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Llwyd, Elfyn


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Luff, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Collins, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Madel, Sir David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Maples, John



Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan, Alan
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Greenway, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Grieve, Dominic
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House applauds the Government for its achievements on Home Office issues; notes that the previous government left the youth justice system in disarray, left chaos in the immigration and asylum system, in particular as a result of provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, and that police numbers fell by 1,500 between 1992–93 and 1997–98; further notes the action that the Government has taken in asking the Intelligence and Security Committee to review the handling of the Mitrokhin Archive, including key decisions taken before 1997; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to provide new money to fund the recruitment of 5,000 police officers over and above the number that would otherwise have been recruited, comprehensively to tackle crime and disorder and to develop a fairer, faster and firmer immigration and asylum system, through the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which will better serve genuine refugees and help reduce the number of abusive claims in the United Kingdom.'.

National Health Service

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to the next motion. I inform the House that Madam Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and has ruled that there will be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly as the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.

Dr. Fox: That was a short soundbite, even for me.
I beg to move,
That this House notes and applauds the dedication of those who work in the National Health Service but regrets the inadequacy of the support they receive from Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to deliver a first-class service; deplores the mismanagement of the National Health Service by Her Majesty's Government; regrets the continued distortion of clinical priorities in favour of political targets; urges the new Secretary of State to acknowledge the damage the waiting list initiative has caused to the National Health Service and to abandon waiting list targets as a measure of performance; calls on him to acknowledge the existence of rationing in the National Health Service and to ensure that in future such rationing takes place solely on the basis of clinical need; and calls for a fully informed and wide-ranging debate on the future of health care delivery to ensure that the people of this country have the health services they deserve.
I hope that tonight's debate will be the first in a series of mature and incisive health care debates. However, given the amendment that has been tabled by Her Majesty's Government, I imagine that it will be a rather rhetorical conversation initiated by those on this side of the House, with Government Members advancing the usual simple, puerile arguments about how the Conservatives seek to privatise the national health service and so on. The Opposition will present reasonable, well thought out ideas about the future shape of health care, which I expect will be met with hissing and booing from the second-rate pantomime audience opposite.
We have three aims for health care in this country. We want a shift from throughput to outcome and from waiting lists to waiting times, and we want clinical priorities to replace political priorities. I say at the outset that I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State because he knows that we are absolutely right in those aims—he probably shares most of them. He must tonight defend not his waiting list initiative but that of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and of the Prime Minister. The initiative has been condemned by almost every health care group, including the British Medical Association—that reactionary force which the Secretary of State loathes so much—the Royal College of Nursing, another reactionary group; the Royal College of Physicians; and the Royal College of Surgeons, each of which belongs to the forces of darkness that the Prime Minister sees around every corner. The Secretary of State is desperate to claim our territory, but he knows that he cannot dismiss the Prime Minister's pledge.
The Secretary of State is another of the Government's political prisoners: he is impotent in his Department because he cannot do what he knows to be right. He is

desperate for a dose of political Viagra which, in this Government, is in as short supply as the real thing. The real problem that we face is not simply the Government's policy but the culture of the Government. As was revealed by the Home Office team in the previous debate, this Government engage not just in creative accountancy but in crooked accountancy. The Home Secretary's school of accountancy is applied in the Department of Health and in every other Government Department, so when the Secretary of State says that there will be an extra 410 cardiologists by 2005, he does not bother to add that those people are already in training and would be available to the NHS anyway.
The Government have a wonderful definition of "extra". Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you asked me to get you a sandwich from the Tea Room and I returned with an extra sandwich, you would expect to receive two sandwiches. However, if you sent the Secretary of State, you would get not only just one sandwich but an explanation that it was one more sandwich than you would have received if he had not gone in the first place. That is how the Government manage their accounting and their rhetoric.
More important is the Government's fundamental dishonesty. The Government promise things that they know they cannot deliver—it is part of the great Labour lie. While that is bad in other policy areas, to promise in health care things that one cannot deliver is to take advantage of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable. The Government say that there will be extra consultants, but there are none. They say that there is no rationing when rationing is occurring. With Viagra and Relenza we have the most specific examples yet of health care rationing. The Secretary of State says that every drug that patients need will be made available—he should tell that to those whose consultants say that they would benefit from beta interferon. The Government, whose rhetoric does not match their actions, take cynicism to heights previously unknown in our politics.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: How does the hon. Gentleman square all that he is going to do for the health service with the fact that a Tory Government would cut taxes at the same time?

Dr. Fox: During the 18 years of Conservative government we made dramatic moves, not only in increasing the funding for health care available in this country but in reducing the burden of taxation, which was higher when we came into office in 1979 than when we left. It is entirely possible with economic growth, as we demonstrated, to increase health expenditure while reducing taxation. The two, of course, are not mutually exclusive.
The Government's cynicism is most apparent in their manipulation not only of money but of waiting list figures. There have been several examples recently of quite scandalous manipulation of statistics.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: In a moment; I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's defence.
In Bradford, for example, it was decided that patients who had previously had surgery to insert metal plates or screws in their bodies through various types of orthopaedic surgery and were waiting for them to be removed were not really waiting for treatment because they had received part of it. They could not get through an X-ray machine at Heathrow, but, according to the Government, they were not waiting for any treatment. They were put on a new list called 05 and are part of the Government's great disappeared of the health service.
In Derriford in Plymouth, those who reached the 18-month maximum waiting time for heart surgery were, strangely enough, subject to further investigation, after which the clock was stopped. They may have had chest pain or angina, and they may have been waiting in fear for the surgery, but, according to the official statistics, no one waited more than 18 months for surgery at those hospitals. That is a crude and repulsive manipulation of the data. At the Alexandra hospital in Redditch, 759 patients simply disappeared off the waiting list. That was called an administrative clean-up, which is a rather nice term for removing from the list patients who are still waiting for treatment.

Mr. Dawson: As we are talking about manipulation, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Conservative Government totally failed to give any credence whatever to the Black report, to health inequalities or to the prime role of poverty as a precursor to ill health?

Dr. Fox: We are talking about patients who are waiting for surgery that could be life saving and who may die prematurely if it is denied to them. That argument demands more than a cheap, sixth-form debating point.
How many patients are living in pain and fear while awaiting surgery but are simply being removed from the statistics because it is awkward for the Government if they appear in them? Getting on the waiting list is in itself quite an achievement. People have first to get on the waiting list for the waiting list and then, if they are very good, they might get on the waiting list itself. The total number of such people—those who have seen their general practitioner but have not yet had treatment—has increased massively under this Government: 237,000 extra patients are waiting for treatment. They are the real waiters in the NHS, not those who are defined narrowly by the Government.
The problem of waiting lists lies at the heart of all the Government's troubles. The trouble with the waiting list initiative is that it treats all patients on the list in exactly the same way. Someone who is waiting for a coronary bypass graft is treated the same as someone with an ingrowing toenail. They matter, and are weighted, the same on that particular list, so within a finite budget there is inevitably pressure on clinicians from hospital managers and others to try to get the numbers down by using theatre time in a way that gets the maximum number off the list. That means that three inguinal hernias can be dealt with instead of a coronary bypass and in the same amount of theatre time. That is what has been happening.
People say, "Surely getting waiting lists down is a good thing?" It would be if the initiative were applied according to correct clinical priority, but clinical priority is being completely distorted to fit the Government's political priorities. That, if not unethical, is certainly an immoral way of running our health care system.
Since he took office, the Secretary of State has been willing to talk about a change of tack. I urge him to ditch the waiting list initiative, which is continuing to cause clinical distortion across the country. Surgeons and doctors are all complaining that their clinical freedom is being interfered with. He knows that the initiative is causing problems in the service—why does he not just ditch it? That might offend the Prime Minister's ego, but there would be plenty left if we lost a bit of it.
One matter that I want to concentrate on is the Government's attitude to cancer treatment. I did my junior doctor training in haematology and oncology, and I would be the first to agree that we need to improve our outcomes dramatically in respect of almost all cancers. I am right behind any Government of any political colour who seek to achieve that, but it has to be done in the proper way. The Government's cancer policy, as with everything else that they have tried to achieve, is not properly thought out and is run by gimmicks, headlines, crooked accountancy and incompetence.
Let us begin with some of the gimmicks. We have a drug tsar, so we have to have a cancer tsar. No doubt they will be joined by the gastroenterology tsar, the respiratory tsar, the cardiology tsar, the over-spending patient care group tsar and, when winter arrives, the winter crisis tsar. We may be short of consultants and have the smallest number per head of population of any comparable western country, but—my God—we will have the highest number of tsars per head of any western European country. What good will that do patients? None whatever. It is one of the many gimmicks employed by the Government, but what matters is the policies that follow.
The question of crooked accountancy comes up time and again. We hear great announcements of extra money and, before he deserted the sinking ship, the Secretary of State's predecessor sent all Members of the House a letter entitled "Cancer funding boost". It says:
I wrote to you with details of £93 million … to provide the biggest ever investment in cancer equipment in England.
However, sources in the profession tell us that exactly the same money had been earmarked for quite some time. Without extra funding, that money is enough to keep operating about only half the linear accelerators, which are an essential part of cancer treatment. It is a fraud and a sham. The whole thing is a complete charade.
On top of that, we have another example of Government incompetence. A serious point was put to the junior Minister at Question Time last week. We said that there was a grave danger—the point has today been echoed by the president of the Royal College of Surgeons—of swamping the system if every woman with a breast lump was to be referred within two weeks. I gave the Minister an example: neither the general surgeons nor the gynaecologists could cope if every woman with post-menopausal bleeding was referred within two weeks.
I asked:
What level of clinical suspicion is required
before the Government's time pledge comes into account. Is every patient with suspected cancer or only those with urgent referral for suspected cancer included? My understanding is that only urgent patients fall within the two-week time scale. I look to Ministers for clarification of the position, but I assume from the Secretary of State's silence is that my understanding is correct—only patients who are referred urgently will be seen. It is important to


clarify that because the belief out there, and that which has been spun by Ministers to the press, is that every patient with suspected cancer would be seen within two weeks. Which is it? We look for clarification because it makes a huge difference to the real running of the system with real doctors, not spin doctors, and real patients.
When the Minister was asked that question, answer came there none. She said:
We are working with GPs on the guidelines to ensure that referral takes place properly and according to appropriate clinical priorities."—[Official Report, 19 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 244.]
That was very interesting because the letter that we received from the British Medical Association said:
I have checked with the GP Committee and discovered that they have not been involved in discussions with the Department of Health on any guidelines.
Will the Minister clarify exactly whom she was talking to?
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has tabled a parliamentary question about what recent discussions have taken place between the Department and representatives of general practitioners regarding guidelines, the level of clinical suspicion in cancer diagnosis and when those discussions took place. Having had a week to consider her diary, the Minister said that she would let my hon: Friend have a reply as soon as possible. Despite all the extra special advisers and civil servants, Ministers cannot even look back in their diaries and decide when they met GP representatives. We suspect, therefore, that no such discussions have taken place, and that that is another part of the fantasy politics in which Ministers are engaged.
Ministers scoff at the potential overworking of the system, but the president of the Royal College of Surgeons said:
Clinics are being snowed under with inappropriate referrals for breast cancer. Breast surgeons are coping, just, at the moment, but it could be at the expense of other things.
The College is particularly concerned that when they bring on bowel cancer this is going to place an even greater load on hospital services.
We need to know tonight with far greater clarity exactly what the Government's policies are and what the Government will do in response to those important criticisms from people at the cutting edge of the service.
We have made our priorities clear. We believe in instituting a patients guarantee, ensuring that the sickest patients will be treated first; and those with less urgent conditions will have to take their appropriate place in the queue.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman talks about taking pressures off the NHS. Would he advise people who can afford it to take out private medical insurance?

Dr. Fox: I shall deal with the private sector in a moment—it is essential that we do so as part of a rational debate. I want to ensure that people take their appropriate place in the queue, that there is no queue jumping and that some people are not pushed up the queue ahead of those with greater clinical need because some political priority is being forced on hospital managers.
We have said that we would continue to increase funding for the NHS in real terms year on year, as we did during our period in office. However, we believe that there is a place in health provision for the independent sector and that we should have more mixed provision. The biggest difference between what this country spends on health and what comparable European countries spend is that while our state spend is similar, people in other countries spend rather more from their post-taxation income.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) implied that it is bad to take out private health insurance. That is strange logic for any Government who rake in money from tobacco sales but tell us that we should not buy private health insurance; in other words, people can buy ill health but they must not buy health—what a twisted sense of morality.
I want to make one or two things absolutely clear for the sake of this debate. My party does not want an entirely private system. I have had experience of such a system in the United States, and I find the idea of a health care system that is not free at the point of use absolutely repugnant, and would not support such a system. Given that the culture in this country has developed from our experience of the national health service, we have the chance to get the best of both worlds. A Government who talk about partnership and mixed provision show how Luddite they are on health when they totally deprecate individuals who want to take out private health provision for themselves or their families.
Certain conditions must be attached to any independent sector involvement. It must augment NHS provision, not seek to replace it, and it must increase the total capacity of available health care. It must be uniformly regulated, because it would be unacceptable for a Health Secretary to use public money to buy private health care that was not regulated and did not guarantee certain minimum standards that we take for granted in the NHS.
The most important change needs to come from the insurance industry. I have no private health insurance because, like many people, I believe that the private health insurance products on offer are too inflexible and heavily loaded, have too many exemptions and are too expensive. We need far cheaper and more flexible products which are accessible to a much wider range of our fellow citizens at all income levels. The restriction in that market holds people back from helping to augment the spend on health, which would relieve some of the burden on the NHS.

Dr. Peter Brand: In continental Europe, there are compulsory insurance-based systems. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is not dissimilar to raising money through taxation, because people have no choice—they have to insure privately? What he advocates would work only if standards in the NHS—the publicly provided service—were such that people had an incentive to go private. What does he think might attract people to pay extra money on top of their taxes?

Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman confuses two issues: access and quality. What we should be able to have from the NHS is an absolute assurance that, if we or members of our family are ill, the most serious complaints will be treated first and within a reasonable time, and there will be no distortion of clinical priorities. However, it is


perfectly acceptable that people may choose to spend their private incomes on any product that they choose, to buy convenience in health care with their post-taxation income, thereby relieving the burden on the NHS. What is wrong with a system that buys everybody the best of every possible world, while allowing us to get better value from the NHS?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Fox: I am conscious of the time and the fact that many hon. Members want to speak.
Our motion begins by discussing the first-class staff in the NHS. Sadly, however, they are increasingly first-class staff in a second-class service. Morale is very low, from GP recruitment to early retirement for consultants. Despite the Government's attempts to increase recruitment, we are short of midwives and nurses because we cannot retain them. We must increase the total amount that we spend on health. Some money can come from the Treasury, but not enough. We must encourage people to spend more on getting good health through prevention and other products—some 15.5 million of us buy private health insurance for overseas travel every year, and the ground does not open up and swallow us.
We need more doctors, not more spin doctors. The Government say that they want to think the unthinkable, but now they will not even think the thinkable. They are obsessed with monopoly provision in health, whereas in everything else they claim partnership and mixed provision. It is not the British Medical Association or the royal colleges that are bound by the dark forces of conservatism, but the Government through their health policies. Just as they resisted people's right to buy their council homes and to have their own pension funds, so they seek to deny us choice in the provision of our own health care. The Conservative party, not the Government, will genuinely set the people free.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
applauds the dedication, skill and professionalism of the staff of the National Health Service but regrets that Her Majesty's Opposition seek to undermine the National Health Service at every turn; welcomes the Government's success in cutting waiting lists in line with its manifesto pledge and its programme to make services faster and more convenient; supports the Government's commitment to modernise cancer, heart disease and mental health services, and to ensure high standards of National Health Service care everywhere; notes that a modernised National Health Service funded through taxation and offering treatment according to need not ability to pay is both fairer and more efficient than private alternatives supported by the Opposition; and so believes that the National Health Service should be modernised not privatised.'.
It is a privilege to stand here as a Labour Secretary of State for Health in a Labour Government committed to modernising the national health service, which a Labour Government created in the first place. Incidentally, the Conservative party voted against it not once, not twice, but 51 times.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) promised a mature debate. I am still looking forward to precisely that. What we heard tonight was a Conservative party committed not to the future of the NHS or to modernising

it, but to demoralising it. It is committed to demoralising the public who use it and the dedicated staff who provide treatment and care day in, day out.

Sir Raymond Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman started his career as Secretary of State for Health with the hoary old myth to which Labour politicians cling. Is he aware that the structure of the NHS was set out in the 1944 White Paper produced by the coalition Government led by a Conservative Minister of State for Health?

Mr. Milburn: I am aware of how the Conservative party voted when it came to push and shove: it voted against the NHS. Conservative Members entered the No Lobby 51 times. Indeed, some Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not shout across the Chamber.

Mr. Milburn: At that time, some Conservative Members warned that the coming of the national health service would bring about the demise of civilisation as we had known it. I believe, as do the staff and the public, that it has been the greatest civilising force this century.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State talked about the future of the national health service. The debates to which he refers took place before I was born, and I am not young. He may be a little younger than I am, but it was before he and most of the people in this Chamber were born. Let us talk about the future instead of the past.

Mr. Milburn: I am happy to rise to the hon. Gentleman's challenge. It is our intention to build up the national health service, whereas the mantra that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is the new Conservative mantra for the NHS: talk it down, run it down, deny it can ever succeed. We all know that the national health service must change and improve—staff and patients also know that. It must be fairer, faster and more convenient. Yes, it must modernise, but no, it does not have to privatise. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservatives.

Mr. David Wilshire: The Secretary of State says that the NHS must be more convenient. In that case, why will my constituents be forced to travel further because our local accident and emergency department and 70 acute beds are to close? Services are being transferred out of the constituency. Does he consider that to be more convenient?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that changes in NHS structures and services are not a peculiar development of the past two years: they have been going on for the past 50 years or more, and will continue. We should welcome what is happening in the national health service. With the advent of new technology, such as telemedicine, and new treatments and drugs, more and more treatments are being brought closer to where people live. That is a welcome development.
I can give the hon. Gentleman a good example of that. Twenty or 30 years ago, patients with a stomach ulcer would have gone into hospital for invasive surgery, which would have been risky, and would sometimes have resulted in time off work or serious injury. Nowadays, such patients are treated with drugs. That is better, faster, more convenient and a good development. Those who say that we have an enormous problem with the NHS drugs budget and that it is growing exponentially forget that those new drug treatments are welcomed by patients and by staff. Such developments are not peculiar to the past couple of years. They have been part and parcel of the national health service for the past 50 years or more.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: I shall make a little progress, and I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a moment.
The hon. Member for Woodspring made allegations about fiddled figures. It is slightly galling to hear Conservative Members talk about fiddled figures, but I shall let that go for a moment. He made an allegation about Bradford, which was first raised in the House on 9 November 1998, and was repeated on 25 March this year. The hon. Gentleman knows that that allegation has no foundation in truth. He referred to metal plates. Patients go into hospital to have a plate inserted and subsequently have to have it removed. Of course they are not on a waiting list to have it taken out. On that logic, pregnant women would be on a nine-month waiting list. As the hon. Gentleman knows fine well, that is a planned admission.
The hon. Gentleman and his party seem to gain some perverse satisfaction from trying to convince people that the national health service is failing. What is worse, they try to convey the impression that it is bound to fail and can never succeed.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: In a moment.
The Conservatives present a catalogue of doom and a counsel of despair. There they are: Dr. Gloom on the Front Bench, and the doom merchants on the Back Benches. They are like some failed 1960s pop group. For each of the past 51 years, the NHS has proved the doom merchants wrong. It has coped with new ailments, new treatments, new drugs and an ageing population. It will go on coping for at least the next 51 years, but it will do that only by modernising and introducing new drugs and treatments.
There has been a lottery of care. The Conservatives were responsible for that when they created the divisive internal market. The uptake of treatments that work has been too slow, and the uptake of treatments that do not work has been too fast. We want fairer and more effective decision making in all parts of the national health service. That is why we established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, new national health service frameworks and the Commission for Health Improvement.

Our answer to those problems is not crude rationing decisions, but clear rational decisions. That is the difference between us and the Conservative party.

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Dr. Fox: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I shall first give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).

Mr. Howarth: The Secretary of State should not display such complacency. The Labour party is losing a lot of ground on this issue. How would he respond to my constituent who was diagnosed in February this year as requiring heart surgery? He was told that he would not be able to have that surgery until June or August next year. The reason given was that the Government have said that consultants should set themselves the objective of getting waiting lists down, not addressing clinical priorities. The Secretary of State had better beware, because the complacency that he has shown tonight will not go down well. He should respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) should not make a speech.

Mr. Milburn: There is no complacency on these issues. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to listen, he would know fine well that one of the first things that I did when I became Secretary of State was to find new, extra money—

Mr. Philip Hammond: It is not new money.

Mr. Milburn: It is new money. I made the first allocation from NHS budgets for next year. No money had been allocated for next year. I allocated extra money to speed up heart surgery—£50 million to pay for 3,000 extra heart operations. Surely the hon. Gentleman should have welcomed that, rather than run it down.

Dr. Fox: I counsel the Secretary of State against using the word "extra", because it has the same currency as "read my lips". He said that there was no rationing in the health care system. People would say that there is rationing if a new drug is not made available, and if some drugs are available in some parts of the country but not in others on the ground of cost. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view? Does he believe that there is rationing in the health care system?

Mr. Milburn: The national health service has always faced hard choices. That is the reality of life in the NHS. It is the reality for clinicians on the ground, and it is the reality for those of us who are charged with running the service. There has always been priority setting in the national health service, and there always will be. The issue is how priorities are set. We believe that priorities should be set on the grounds of effectiveness and what works. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that they want a system based not on what works, but


on who can afford to pay for their care. That is the dividing line between Tories and Labour on health care. It is not about rationing: it is about rational decisions.

Dr. Fox: rose—

Dr. Brand: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to a Liberal Democrat for a change.

Dr. Brand: The Liberal Democrats supported the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and I support the Government's approach to rational decision making. However, hamstringing NICE by making affordability one of the criteria for NHS treatment is too restrictive. That decision should be made by politicians—the Secretary of State himself—rather than clinicians.

Mr. Milburn: Clinicians and managers throughout the national health service, whether in fundholding or other systems of care, have always had to decide how to align clinical and financial responsibility. What we are doing is helpful to clinicians. Doctors and managers on the ground want to know that when they take difficult decisions they have support from the centre. We are not abdicating responsibility—that is what happened under the previous lot. We take responsibility and make difficult decisions. I applaud my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the previous Secretary of State, for the difficult decisions that he had to take on Viagra and Relenza. By and large, those decisions have been welcomed in the national health service.

Dr. Fox: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I shall make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The truth is that, in the debate about rationing, the Conservatives' aim is to stimulate not a debate, but doubts. They do not believe that the national health service can cope, and they do not want the public to believe that it can cope. They want more people to be treated privately. The hon. Member for Woodspring was explicit about this, both today and in his speech yesterday, with which I shall deal in a moment. As the Prime Minister said in Bournemouth just a few weeks ago, we want a health care system that delivers care when people want it, where they want it—and we want it on the national health service.
The Opposition motion is the product of a strange Conservative form of selective amnesia. Since the Conservative party's visit to Blackpool, there seems to have been an outbreak of it. First, on that occasion, the Conservatives forgot even to mention their former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). [Interruption.] It is true: they forgot to mention him. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, slips are made in politics. These things can happen.
Secondly, the Conservatives managed to expunge from the record their former conference darling, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—he of the famous "little list". They now want to take that amnesiac approach to politics a stage further by conveniently ignoring their own record on the national

health service. This must be the first occasion on which a political party has tried to airbrush itself out of politics. Well, the Conservatives may have forgotten what they did, but we have not—and neither have the staff of the national health service, or the public who rely on it.
Let me remind the Opposition of the Conservative record on health, and the difference that a Labour Government are making to the state of the NHS. When we came to office, the Tories had cut the number of nurses in training by more than 4,000. It is no use the hon. Member for Woodspring going on about the shortage of nurses; the Conservatives created that shortage in the first place. This year, following the biggest real-terms pay increase that nurses have had in a decade, the number of student nurses is at a six-year high.
When we came to office, investment in new buildings, plant and equipment was at a 10-year low. This year, the NHS capital budget is at an all-time high. The biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS is now under way, and about 200 casualty departments and 1,000 GP surgeries are being modernised. When we came to office, the Tories had undermined the NHS and demoralised its staff by introducing the hated internal market. The motion deplores mismanagement; I deplore it too. That is why we have abolished the internal market in the national health service. That is why we have ended the two-tier system introduced by GP fundholding, and that is why we are putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat to share the task of providing health care in the future. In the process, we are freeing £1 billion from bureaucracy so that we can reinvest it in front-line patient services. Those are the public's priorities for the national health service, and they are our priorities too.

Dr. Fox: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, for the last time.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
As a matter of historical fact, can the Secretary of State tell us what proportion of this record capital spend on the NHS is due to PFI projects? Can he also tell us what was his party's attitude before the election?

Mr. Milburn: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what my party promised in its manifesto at the last general election. We promised that we would rejuvenate the private finance initiative and make it work. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the private finance initiative in health at his peril, because the Conservatives had not done a single hospital deal by the time we came to office.
The hon. Gentleman talks of management consultants. The Conservatives spent £30 million on consultants' salaries and lawyers' salaries, and not a single hospital was built. We have the hospital building programme under way, through both the PFI and the public route. Communities throughout the country which have waited for decades are now seeing the building of new hospitals.
It is this Government, too, who have invested an extra £21 billion in the national health service. The hon. Gentleman skated over that today, which did not surprise me. After all, it was his party that described the extra spending as reckless, madness and irresponsible. Try as


the hon. Gentleman might to rewrite history once again, his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the game away when he accused my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of being goaded on class sizes and waiting lists, and to have gone soft on spending. We are spending more; the Conservatives want us to spend less. We will take no lessons from them on the inadequacy of support for the health service.
Nor will we take any lessons on waiting lists. When we came to office, waiting lists were at a record level, and rising fast. Today, they are falling. They are already down by 69,000, and we will keep them going down. By the end of the current Parliament, they will be 100,000 lower than the level that we inherited. The hon. Gentleman says that I should abandon the promises that we made at the last election. That is the cavalier Conservative way with election promises. When we make promises, we keep them. Indeed, it is because of our success in getting waiting lists down that we are now able to move into the next phase of our modernisation programme.
Cutting waiting lists was always just the start. I want all aspects of NHS care to be modernised. We start with services dealing with our country's biggest killers, cancer and coronary heart disease. Those are my priorities for modernisation. In the last fortnight, I have been able to put more money into paying for extra heart operations, so that patients can gain quicker access to the surgery that they need.
The hon. Gentleman says that I did not announce the provision of 400 extra consultants. Let me tell him that I did. He should know that there is a difference between doctors in training and doctors in post. The Opposition are in training, while we are in post—and the same applies to my announcement.
Yesterday, I also announced more money for cancer services. The hon. Gentleman dismissed that as a gimmick, but it is £80 million of new, extra money, enabling cancer patients to obtain faster, fairer access to care. Let us hear no more from Conservative Members about the distortion of clinical priorities. The question for the hon. Gentleman is simple: does he support our efforts to modernise services dealing with the most severe clinical conditions, or does he not? The public support them; staff support them; patients with suspected cancer support them. They want faster, fairer care, and they know that it will be delivered by this Labour Government.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Milburn: I will give way one last time.

Miss McIntosh: Last week, the Secretary of State was kind enough to suggest, in reply to a question, that Shaun Johnstone should have had a brain tumour scan within two weeks. He was not given a scan within two months. The health service clearly failed him. Indeed, the photographer on the local newspaper in his home constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief; they should not be seen as opportunities to raise constituency matters at length.

Mr. Milburn: Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Lady last week at Question Time. I understand the

circumstances surrounding the tragic case of Shaun Johnstone. I know that it has been looked into by the health authority, and I know that Shaun Johnstone' s parents have been advised that they should go to the health service commissioner, which is the right thing for them to do. Nevertheless, I repeat my promise to examine the case, and when I have had an opportunity to do so, I shall return to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: No, I will not.
It will take time, effort and investment to turn the national health service around, but, notwithstanding the allegation in the motion, the national health service is not getting worse; it is getting better. More patients are being treated, more doctors are being trained, more nurses are being recruited, more hospitals are being built and more services are being modernised. It will go on getting better each and every year that this Government are in office. No doubt, every step of the way, it will go on being talked down by the Conservative party. The Conservatives are determined to brand the NHS a failure.
Yesterday, we saw the clearest contrast between Conservative priorities for the NHS and Labour priorities. Yesterday, both the hon. Member for Woodspring and I visited NHS hospitals. I went to visit patients and staff in the cancer care unit at St. Thomas's hospital, which is opposite this place. He visited an NHS hospital in Burton-upon-Trent. I outlined plans for modernising England's cancer services. He outlined plans to get more people to buy private health insurance.
I talked about more money for the NHS. The hon. Member for Woodspring talked about pricing policy in private health care. I talked about national standards to end the lottery in health care. He talked about product standards in private medicine. What better contrast could there be—Labour creating a faster, fairer health service, available to all; the Tories encouraging a private, pay-as-you-go health system that is available only to a few.
The differences between Labour and the Conservatives on health have never before been clearer. They believe that improvements in health care can come only through an enhanced role for the private sector. We believe that improvements in health care have to come through the NHS. Only the NHS is capable of offering care on the basis of need, and need alone, not of ability to pay.
We now know what the next Conservative manifesto will mean for the national health service; the hon. Member for Woodspring has been explicit about that at least. He calls his approach the "silent revolution", although, as he told a conference fringe meeting just a few weeks ago:
no one has really picked up on what it actually means".
I can tell him. We have picked up on exactly what it means. I am determined that his secret revolution gets all the publicity that it deserves in communities throughout the land. He believes that
the biggest problem we have in the NHS is that it is not a proper market".
That will come as a bit of a surprise to NHS staff, who could not wait to get rid of the last market that the Conservatives introduced to the NHS.
The hon. Member for Woodspring says that the secret revolution could
revolutionise private insurance in the way we revolutionised pensions in the 1980s"—
no doubt with the same impact. The Conservatives' secret revolution can be summed up in a simple phrase: not modernisation, but privatisation. It is a measure of how far today's Conservatives have moved from the political mainstream. They are prisoners of their own extremism.
Today's Conservatives have no ambition for the NHS. They do not feel comfortable with the NHS's values. They want market forces in a service that is founded on co-operative principles. Fifty years after they opposed the creation of the national health service, they oppose its modernisation. They deserve to be rejected now, just as they were rejected then. I invite my hon. Friends to do just that in the Division Lobby later.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Health. For all the demands and pressures, I think that it is one of the most exciting and rewarding roles in government, but there is a profound difference between the way in which he sees the health service and the way in which many Conservative Members see it.
Behind the rhetoric, the Secretary of State knows the position. He consults the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organisation and other international bodies, which believe that others are copying our changes in the health service over the past decade, the essence of which his party has endorsed. They include a focus on primary care, the introduction of a preventive strategy and greater efficiency: what is called corporatisation of hospitals. Those are all developments that, for all the rebranding and rebadging, his party has, with a lot of noise, endorsed. Evidence-based medicine was the labour of love, if we like, of my term of office. I am delighted to see it move forward with the service frameworks and the development of NICE.
Where the Secretary of State and Conservative Members differ is that he really believes that the service is getting better. It is a serious criticism of his party that, in office, he and his colleagues rarely visit constituencies of Members who do not belong to their party.
I spent many days in Darlington, Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds. I saw the investment in hospitals and primary care. I recognise the variations in health and the need for economic and social policies to address the problems, but I ask the Secretary of State and his colleagues to spend the same amount of time in South-West Surrey and other comparable constituencies. The degree of pessimism in the health service in my area and in those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends is appalling.
I would have liked to have asked the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), who has now left the Chamber, an ethical question about private health services. If your child went to an accident and emergency department with a teacher or nurse—both have come to me in the past fortnight—was not seen after an hour and a half, and it was suggested that you took the child home, would you think that that was a good enough service? If mental health provision were so inadequate that a young man with developed schizophrenia burned his parents' house to the ground, even though they warned the services of his deteriorating condition, would you think that the service was good enough? If you spoke to a consultant, as I did today, who said that the situation has never been worse—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady should not use the term "you" at such great length.

Mrs. Bottomley: I profoundly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The degree of emotion being generated in west Surrey is such that I want the Secretary of State to be aware of how desperate people feel.
The Royal Surrey county hospital has moved psycho-geriatric patients into surgical beds. Waiting lists are all rising. On the day that the Secretary of State's initiative on cancer was announced, a cancer specialist approached me saying, "Yes, we have to see people within a fortnight, but the surgery cases and chemotherapy waiting lists are both lengthening." On the day of the heart disease announcement, a doctor rang and said, "That is all very well, but the angiography waiting list has almost trebled in the past year."
The Secretary of State asks why I did not do anything. During my term as a Minister, I do not believe that I ever suggested that change would lead to a deterioration of services. No one in West Surrey health authority believes anything other than that services will deteriorate.
The ethical issue is: in those cases that I have identified, when a constituent says, "Should I go private if I can?", what is the appropriate response of the Member of Parliament? I have never believed that that situation would develop, but I have read the headlines of the local paper over the past month:
Health chiefs must cut services by £20m by 2002.
Anger at cuts in child health services.
'Blocked' beds put pressure on services.
The funding raid on the home counties, which the Government describe as tackling inequalities, means that social services have lost £10 million. At the same time, the health service has a funding package that does not fund staff costs in an area with a high cost of living. It does not cover the cost of rents and all the other expenses in the area, which the Labour party dismisses as prosperous and treats in the same way as it treated the eight children from an independent school at its party conference. Other headlines state:
A and E patients forced to wait up to 20 hours";
and:
Hospital could be £1m in the red by March.
I appreciate that Labour Members have little interest in areas such as the one that I represent. However, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman might have been concerned about recent newspaper reports that tour operators have been advising people visiting the United


Kingdom to take out private health care insurance. When I held the right hon. Gentleman's office, a frequently heard quip—which no one ever challenged—ran, "If you're abroad and ill, what do you do? You come back to the use the NHS. If you're ill and a foreigner in Britain, what do you do? You use the NHS." Why, therefore, should tour operators, such as the German equivalent of the Automobile Association, now be advising people to take out private health insurance?
Nouvelles Frontieres states:
People have had lots of problems seeing a doctor in Britain. With insurance they can see a doctor straight away.
Portuguese tour operators have said that special health insurance was mandatory for the United Kingdom, but not for anywhere else in Europe. Elder Alves, of Top Tours, said:
We always arrange health protection for people visiting London. We do not use NHS hospitals.
The French Guide states:
You have to have an appointment to see a doctor. Insist that it is urgent—otherwise you could end up being healed next week for this week's flu.
Henri Menna said:
I tell French parents to take out private medical insurance so they can have peace of mind. If the person contracts something serious or needs surgery while in England, it is better to get the person straight back to France, where the treatment and care are much better.
Those comments should disturb Ministers and other Labour Members as much as they disturb Conservative Members.
If the reality is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot deliver services or provide adequate resources, it would be better to be courageous and say that there must be more co-payment and more explicit rationing, so that patients might know what is or is not available. Currently, however, people are being told to wait ever longer, and they are getting ever more worried about their inability to receive treatment. The situation is unacceptable.
Difficulties are being experienced not only by patients. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the problem of disillusioned doctors is bigger than ever before, partly because of the public sector salary structure compared with opportunities available for comparable graduates outside the public sector. However, the difficulties facing doctors, and Ministers' lack of realism, is causing doctors' frustration to become ever greater outrage.
Time and again, the Government's policy has been driven by the need to please No. 10 Downing street, with media initiatives such as supernurses, walk-in centres and NHS Direct. However, a telephone line will not help to cure the health service's problems. NHS Direct is perfectly all right, but it is essentially a trivial and marginal initiative. It is well known in the service that No. 10 Downing street drove that initiative, and imposed it on the previous Secretary of State for Health.
The right hon. Gentleman is about to encounter an extremely serious winter situation and all the problems caused by the new millennium. I do not know the accuracy of The Independent's report that the previous Secretary of State decided that seeking the office of London mayor would be preferable to facing the difficulties that he has left the right hon. Gentleman, but my—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Opposition motion demonstrates the remarkable narrowness of Conservative Members' views on health issues. In it, they make two key claims—first, that the waiting list initiative has damaged the national health service; and secondly, that there has been a
distortion of clinical priorities in favour of political targets".
As the Secretary of State said, in their motion Conservative Members are sending a clear and quite profound message—that the Government's electoral promises do not matter. I accept that, for all political parties represented in the House, a sad fact of modern politics is that, frequently, hugely complex issues are slimmed down to one-line soundbites or pledges. Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly, an election pledge is an election pledge, and, like other Labour Members, I was elected on a waiting list pledge. Like my colleagues, I owe it to my constituents to ensure that the Government deliver that pledge.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I shall not; I have only 10 minutes.
It is wrong for the Opposition to criticise the Government for trying to meet the commitments and promises that we made at the general election. None the less, politics seems to have reached that strange state.
What evidence has been presented to support the claims made in the Opposition motion? Supporting evidence from Opposition Members has been very thin. However, I am able to state that, in Health Committee sittings, I have seen evidence of distortions in the formulation of waiting list targets. I saw it in 1991, after the introduction of internal markets. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—who usually attends health debates, but is not here today—will recall evidence that we received from some trusts, which said that the internal market's emphasis on competition with neighbouring trusts had forced them into skewing their priorities. I am also able to state that I have seen distortion of clinical priorities in favour of political targets. It happened in my own constituency, when, under the previous Government, the two-tier fundholding system was operating and some of my constituents who were not patients of fundholders were denied operations.
It is remarkable that the Opposition motion makes absolutely no reference to wider health issues. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) raised the issue of public health—a fundamentally important issue, which, at long last, a Government are taking very seriously. In response, however, the shadow Secretary of State dismissed the public health issue as a sixth-form debating point. Nevertheless, the Government's amendment to the motion rightly mentions cancer and heart disease, which were dealt with at length by the Secretary of State.
Today's British Medical Journal report on the number of young women who die from heart attacks caused by smoking is also entirely relevant to the public health issue. Let us consider those figures, which the Tories have not bothered to quote today.
The fact is that, since 1950—during the lifetime of many hon. Members, including me—6 million people in the United Kingdom have died prematurely from


smoking. The fact is that, every year, 120,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death.
In 18 years in government, what did the Tories do about those facts? They blocked successive attempts in the House to pass United Kingdom legislation preventing tobacco advertising. They also blocked European Union efforts to reach agreement on tobacco advertising. Why? They did so because they were paid to do so by the tobacco companies. They were in hock to the tobacco companies, and therefore have a direct responsibility for the vast numbers of people who have died prematurely in the United Kingdom. The Tories could have acted on tobacco in their years in government, but they regarded public health—the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—as a public school debating point.
I ask Conservative Members: who is calling the tune on their health policy? Who is paying for their policy? I have my own suspicions on that. Since the general election, implicit in every statement made by a Tory Front Bencher has been the desire to shift health care into the private sector. Their desire is now explicit, having been written into their document, "The Common Sense Revolution". In their proposal to shunt patients into the private sector, we have an explicit recipe for destruction of the national health service.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall not give way.
I should like Opposition Members to answer one question that I have asked in probably every health debate since the general election. If people on a waiting list cannot be treated within the time set by whichever Government, possibly because there is a staff shortage in a particular hospital, what sense would it make to push them into the local private sector? That local private sector recruits entirely from the local NHS to treat those same patients. They will take the staff out of the NHS and shunt them into the private sector. It is a downward spiral that will lead to the destruction of a national health service in which the Tories do not believe and in which they have never believed.
The vast majority of the public, whatever their politics, believe in the basic principles of the NHS, as set out in the motion tonight. I wish the Government well in the process of rebuilding the NHS in accordance with those basic principles.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this evening on the state of the NHS. When I looked at the motion, I could not help admiring the brass neck of the Conservatives in tabling it. As I listened to the entertaining and rhetorical speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I felt that one could have been forgiven for imagining that all the catalogue of problems—

Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Harvey: I have barely begun. The hon. Gentleman will have to give me a chance to get started.
I felt that one could have been forgiven for believing that the catalogue of problems that the Conservative spokesman ran through had magically commenced on 1 May 1997, and had come about in the last couple of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the Conservatives caused many of the problems that have been described this evening. Having passed them over—albeit reluctantly—to Labour two and a half years ago, their motion does not seem to have come up with any new solutions.
Apart from the idiosyncratic ideas of the hon. Member for Woodspring about private health care insurance policies, we heard nothing new tonight. I could have been forgiven for closing my eyes and thinking that this debate was indistinguishable from an Opposition day debate before the last election.
It all boils down to a question of resources. The NHS Confederation has been warning that the significant problems that authorities and trusts face in the coming winter will come about because there has been a history of ruthless year-on-year slicing and efficiency savings which has gradually stripped the system of flexibility and has eaten into service quality.
We hear from the Government that £21 billion is going into the NHS. That is a large sum of money which, on initial inspection, seems generous. However, when one looks more closely at the figures, one realises that it is not as much as it sounds. One must consider that, for the first two years of this Parliament, there was a freeze on public expenditure. The Government stuck to Tory spending plans—which it was highly improbable the Tories would have stuck to themselves.
As the £21 billion is measured out throughout the remainder of a four-year Parliament, we see that the Government will not even have increased spending on the NHS up to the same standard, year-on-year, as the Conservatives did during their 18 years in office. When we take out a few spoonfuls from the £21 billion pot to pay for the latest Government initiatives, we see that the pot shrinks even further.
The Government come up with eye-catching initiatives which keep the spin doctors happy, but do not result in improvements in the NHS. Some of the initiatives are good ideas. NHS Direct—although it would have been better to have done it on a local footing—undoubtedly contains the kernel of a good idea. However, the extra funding needs to go to the basic bread-and-butter service before we start having Government wheezes and initiatives which, frankly, amount to honey on top.
As we look forward to winter, reports are coming in that trusts are being forced to overspend, and many are running up deficits that are much bigger than expected. This news comes five months before the end of the financial year, and before we know the scale of the problems that the coming winter may bring with it. More resources are needed.
I agree with the call by the hon. Member for Woodspring for a rational debate on the issue of rationing, and I was depressed to hear the Secretary of State, yet again, dodge the questions about rationing. Of course there is rationing in the health service—there always has been and there always will be.
The Government should define clearly the constraints that are presently applied in the rationing of resources within the NHS, and they should take full responsibility


for the decisions that have to be made within national guidelines. It may be a question of semantics or vocabulary but, in my opinion, that amounts to rationing. We need to have national policies that patients and members of the public understand—for example, on infertility, cosmetic and obesity treatments, and a variety of other issues.
I was depressed to hear the Secretary of State dodging this matter by hiding behind decisions that will be taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE should stick to the remit that it was given when it was set up—of looking at clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. It may be semantics again but, in my view, there is a fundamental difference between cost-effectiveness and affordability. Some things can be cost-effective and yet very expensive. When the White Paper set up NICE, affordability was not included as one of the criteria for the body to consider. When the chairman of the body took up his task, he emphasised that point in response to questions put to him at the time.
This evening, the Secretary of State surprised us by saying clearly that it is already the role of NICE to consider issues of affordability. That is the Government dodging decisions that they ought to take. I disagree with the general thrust of some of the other remarks this evening—the Government should be making such decisions on a political basis, having received from NICE expert advice on clinical efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The issue is becoming confused.
I would welcome a broader look at what constitutes cost-effectiveness. It should not be a question simply of what the NHS's current budget can afford, but rather what UK plc will have to pay out as a result of decisions. For example, there may be a variety of treatments that would enable people to get back to work—and which would save money on benefit bills and housing provision by local authorities—which should be incorporated into any true consideration of what constitutes cost-effectiveness.
I welcome the fact that the Minister with responsibility for public health has a role in considering public health issues that will rove across Departments, but I cannot understand why the same cannot be true when we look at cost-effectiveness issues.
I wish to refer also to the tension that arises following the central diktats launched by the Department of Health, and the difficulties that these cause to the local providers who must carry them through. The Government are forcing health care suppliers to fund some of their well-spun schemes without providing adequate resources.
I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring. I agree with those who have suggested that the basic Conservative prescription for increasing health care provision seems to be an expansion of private health insurance. However, I was puzzled by the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case. Some of his comments about the shortcomings of private health insurance policies were right. I understand why they are unattractive for many people. However, I do not understand how a modification of those policies would suddenly make them vastly more attractive to great swathes of the population, unless the NHS was so unappealing and unattractive that people felt driven to go to such lengths. If we follow his logic, he was almost

arguing—I am not suggesting that he said this—in favour of maintaining long waiting lists to encourage people to make provision for themselves in the private sector. As an hon. Friend said to me yesterday, that is replacing rationing by postcode with rationing by tax code, which is no more desirable than the current situation.

Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the problem. However, that is what is happening under the current Government. I have a constituent who has paid from his life savings to have a life-saving operation because he could not put up with the ludicrous waiting lists that the Labour Government were inflicting on him.

Mr. Harvey: It is certainly true that with the current long waiting lists, some people are paying to go into the private sector. I do not query what the hon. Gentleman says about that. However, the thrust of his hon. Friend's case seemed to be that there needed to be a great increase in the extent to which people were making such provision for themselves. A better objective would be to run the NHS so well that such provision became less attractive.
I also congratulate the Conservatives on taking up the issue of waiting times. It is not an entirely original idea that they seem to have come up with over the past few weeks. The Scottish Administration formed in May after an election campaign that addressed those issues decided that their performance should be judged by waiting times, not by the number of people on waiting lists. It is common sense that the key issue for a patient awaiting care is how long they have to wait: first how long it takes to see a consultant; then perhaps how long it is before they can have a scan or some diagnostic measure; and then how long they spend on the waiting list that the Government measure. Although there have been some extreme comments this evening about the manipulation of figures, it is not a fair assessment of the performance of the NHS simply to look at waiting lists for in-patients and not to consider the growing waiting lists for out-patients.

Mr. Hammond: For the record, will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's current estimate of the amount that would have to be added to income tax to deliver, from taxation, the NHS that he feels that the British people deserve in the 21st century?

Mr. Harvey: One cannot bring about the service that one wants to build in the longer term on the basis of this year's or next year's income tax revenues. We have to invest over time to make good the underinvestment that has been going on for decades. Over time, we have to move towards the proportion of gross domestic product that other European countries spend on health. I agree that the private sector must be counted in that. We have to make progress towards the European average if we are to have health provision comparable with that in our competitor countries and put right the problems to which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) referred in her comments about travel agent's brochures.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The proportion of GDP spent on health care through the national health service is about the same as that spent


on the continent. The difference between spending on the continent and spending here is accounted for by the private sector.

Mr. Harvey: That is simply not true. Our spending is about 2 per cent. lower than the average of other European Union members. The split between public and private provision differs from country to country, but on the total spent we are trailing well behind our competitor nations. I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but that is the fact.
The Secretary of State asked the Opposition to say whether they welcomed the new focus that he has adopted in the past couple of weeks. I should like to make it clear that I do. I hope that he will address the worrying gap between the level of care for cancer patients in this country and that in our competitor nations. Patients and the general public will welcome having those priorities mapped out clearly. If the new cancer tsar, Professor Richards, is to make the progress that we all want, he will need a full increase of resources behind the surgeons to whom the Secretary of State has already referred. That includes nursing staff and equipment. I agree with the comments from the Conservative Front Bench. There have been many representations from health service professionals about the state of the equipment used for cancer care. That will all be important to the work that the Secretary of State is trying to do, and I fear that there will be no scope for recycling any money already committed; the money will need to be genuinely new. Indeed, in planning a work force capable of delivering the new priorities, we must consider what staffing levels throughout the profession will be required.
The Secretary of State talked about the increase in nursing salaries. Certainly the sharp increase in salaries for new nurses is welcome. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that is beginning to have an impact on recruitment into the profession. However, retention is equally important. If we are to solve that problem, we must do something about salaries for existing nursing staff. There have been some examples of new staff earning almost the same as experienced staff. It costs about £33,000 to train a nurse, and £5,000 to replace one who leaves the profession; that figure covers recruitment costs, agency costs and so on. We must think about cost-effectiveness in a broader sense, because spending on nurses can save money.
We also need more nurse-led care, more prescribing by nurses and more specialist nurses. In addition to the impact that that would have on efficiency and on the economics of the national health service, it would also encourage nurses to stay in the profession and relieve some of the pressure on doctors. I was pleased to hear about the GP practice in Derbyshire that is run entirely by a nurse, who sees the patients first and employs a GP to whom she passes them if she thinks it is appropriate and necessary.
Ultimately, without additional funding the NHS cannot remain comprehensive, high quality and free at the point of entry. In the longer run, however, funding the NHS could save other Departments money. When we think about the winter ahead, and the sort of problems that are piling up, including the fact that one quarter of the trusts say that their financial position means that they will have to postpone or cancel developments in the Government's priority area of mental health, we realise that the immediate problems are very serious.
Expecting trusts and authorities to go through the process of efficiency gain and to continue to come up with savings year on year on year is simply causing additional problems, and adding to the problems that we already have is no solution to the headaches that those who try to provide our health service are already experiencing.

Mr. Stephen Hesford: Having heard the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I cannot help observing—this is an old one but a good one—that in the health debate, the Liberal Democrats have bladder trouble again. I am talking about a continuation of the longest "pee"—[Interruption.] I shall take no lessons from them when they talk about funding.
The Conservatives, as well as the Liberal Democrats, have a problem. We heard nothing from their Front-Bench spokesman about spending—nothing about the £21 billion that the Government have placed before the nation to be spent on the national health service over three years. The Conservatives do not talk about that, because they cannot say what they would do.
We heard nothing about the Health Act 1999, either. I had the honour and good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee on that Bill, so I know that one of the reasons why the Conservatives will not talk about it is that they have lost the argument about the structure. In Committee, they talked for hour upon hour about how abolishing fundholding would be the ruin of the health service. Yet we have heard nothing about that today. The Conservatives do not mention it any more, because they lost the argument, and the argument has now moved on.
We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about mental health services. He said that he wanted a mature debate, so why did he not welcome the national frameworks that the Government have recently introduced for major sectors of the health service? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health mentioned public health. If we are having a mature debate, why did the Opposition not welcome "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", the White Paper that addressed that very issue?
The present Government are the first to consider the effects of ill health when determining health policy. Why do we hear nothing from the Opposition about the wider health debate, including the effect of the new deal on poverty? We hear nothing about the national minimum wage, because the Opposition have lost the argument. We hear nothing about the working families tax credit, which will make work pay for families and do much to reduce ill health.
Shamefully, we heard nothing from the hon. Member for Woodspring about staff. In a debate on the health service, he failed to welcome the commitment and dedication of the staff. The Opposition are too churlish to welcome the Government's investment programme which will provide more nurses after years of cuts in nurse numbers under the Tories' regime.
The hon. Member for Woodspring mentioned his theory that private health insurance would get extra money into the national health service. Several powerful criticisms of that approach have been made already, but they are worthy of reiteration. Private health insurance


would mean a massive boost for the Tories' friends in the City in the health insurance market. That is one of the byproducts of that approach.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hesford: No, because I have only 10 minutes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the powerful point that the Tories were not trusted after the mis-selling of private pensions, so why should they be trusted on the idea of health insurance?
The hon. Member for Woodspring did not mention what it would take to attract people to private health insurance. One curious theory, expounded by the hon. Member for North Devon, was that waiting times would be lengthened to force people into it. That is one potential method, but what else could be done?
The method that dare not speak its name was revealed by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) when he made a speech in March 1999 to the Social Market Foundation as a shadow Health Minister. He gave the game away about using tax relief to encourage people to take out private health insurance, although the Opposition seem since to have suffered collective amnesia on the issue. They do not talk about it because of the cost implications. It would cost between £500 million arid £1 billion a year to achieve the take-up of private health insurance that the hon. Gentleman talked about.
I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who is to reply for the Opposition, could deal with that sort of costing. It flies in the face of the tax-cutting agenda that his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor discussed. So much for the Opposition.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) described what goes on in her constituency, but I will not take from her that doom-and-gloom-merchant view of the health service. I visit my local hospitals, see my local primary care groups and talk to the local trusts. I know what the health service is achieving in my constituency and how the Government's agenda sits very well with the people with whom I speak. I very much welcome the Government's modernising agenda.
In the Wirral, we will get a walk-in centre, which will reduce waiting times and lists for patients. We have been allocated £800,000 to modernise our accident and emergency unit. The Opposition do not mention that. Waiting lists are down in my constituency and I have received no letters from constituents complaining about shorter waiting lists. It is nonsense to say that we should not honour that commitment, as has been said rightly and powerfully in this debate.
My local hospital, Arrowe Park, which does an excellent job, is to get a new 12-bed unit to help deal with winter pressures. We are part of the Merseyside health action zone, which returns me to the public health agenda. On the Wirral, we are considering occupational therapies to get those who are suffering from long-term ill health back into employment.
I will end on this note. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said that this debate is fashioned around the idea of year zero—the idea that the Conservatives were not in power for 18 years. Their collective amnesia is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must end now. I call the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).

Mr. David Wilshire: My constituents are growing weary of the NHS propaganda that this Government are pumping out. My constituents are getting less money, not more, they are getting a worse and not a better service, and their interests are being sacrificed on the altar of financial cuts and provider convenience.
The Government's propaganda machine drones on and on about more money for all, but the truth in Spelthorne is the exact opposite. West Surrey health authority's pro rata share of the much hyped £20 billion would be £5 million a year. Instead of getting that £5 million, the health authority has been ordered by the Government to make £20 million in cuts in the next three years. Those are real cuts—the ending of real services—and not merely getting £20 million less than the authority thought it needed. That is a total disgrace. So much for the propaganda about more money for the health service under Labour. Spelthorne is the victim of one of those Labour lies.
The Government's propaganda machine drones on and on about better services for all. Again, the truth in my constituency is very different. West Surrey health authority is savaging services in my constituency in order to cut expenditure. The total pay bill is being cut by 4.6 per cent. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) said that he had heard nothing about staff from Conservative Members. However, I can tell him that in my constituency the cuts will mean fewer nurses and doctors. That is the truth about Labour's national health service. It is the real message about staff that the hon. Gentleman ought to hear.
West Surrey health authority is cutting spending on surgical, medical and intensive care services by £775,000 a year. It is also cutting spending on clinical support services by £1.6 million a year. I am talking not about savings through modernisation or through cutting overheads, but about cuts to front-line services. The consequences of those cuts for Ashford hospital in my constituency include the closure of the accident and emergency department, and the loss of all its intensive care beds and of 70 other acute care beds.
That is the truth of what is happening in my constituency. The House need not take my word for it. When one of the consultants in my constituency was asked what the cuts would mean, he said that they would lead to increased suffering and inconvenience for patients. He added that a few of those patients would die as a result of the cuts. So much for better services under Labour: Spelthorne is the victim of yet another Labour lie.
The Government's propaganda drones on and on about putting patients first, but once again, the truth in my constituency is very different. The Government say that services should be provided where patients want them, and the Secretary of State spoke today about convenience.


However, the closure of local services in my local hospital—for purposes of saving money for the health service and of provider convenience—is forcing my constituents to travel ever further.
The Government say that patients will get the drugs that they want. There has been a lot of hype about that, but my patient care group has been told by my health authority to restrict prescribing in order to cut costs. The Government go on and on about how patients will be referred to the most suitable consultant. However, my PCG is being told to restrict referrals, again in order to cut costs. So much for Labour putting patients first: yet again, Spelthorne is the victim of another Labour lie.
One other truth needs to be taken very seriously, and my constituents know all about it. That truth is that the Labour Government are very willing to play party politics with the NHS in my constituency. Earlier this year, the proposals to cut £20 million worth of services were being drawn up. They were ready to be published when the edict from on high came down prohibiting their publication until after the European elections. We know why that happened, but I am happy to say that my constituents are sensible. They were able to rumble the Government's ploy to protect the Labour position in those elections. Fewer than 4,000 of the 70,000 electors in my constituency voted Labour, because they knew the truth about the Government.
On top of all that, my local health authority has told me that the Government were pressing it only last week not to make any concessions to the local opposition to the cuts that are being made. That is because when the matter reaches the Secretary of State, he will wish to disguise the cuts that he will make by offering sweeteners that he knows my health authority is thinking about. That sort of politicking disgusts me and my constituents.
The Labour party needs to understand another truth: however hard the Government spin and no matter how much propaganda they pump out about the health service, patients will always know the truth. The truth will out. The truth is that my constituency has less money than it did when the Government came to power. We have worse services than we did when the Government came to power. Once the cuts are made, Spelthorne will have fewer doctors and nurses than it did when the Government came to power.
It is time Ministers understood a few simple truths. I shall offer just two tonight: first, propaganda will not cure cancer; and secondly, it is time the Government stopped picking on people just because they vote Conservative.

Ms Oona King: I commend the Opposition for choosing the national health service for debate. If there is one thing on which both sides can agree, it is the importance of health.
I am afraid, however, that my conciliatory approach might have to end at that point. Those who know me know that I do not engage readily in party political point scoring, but I was astonished by the speech given by the shadow Health Secretary, who did nothing but score points. Frankly—if foolishly—I expected a tiny bit more of him. I was particularly shocked when he described the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that poverty causes ill health as a cheap sixth form debating point. If that is the starting

point taken by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I welcome this debate because it gives everyone the chance to see the Opposition score yet another spectacular own goal.
The debate also gives me the opportunity to challenge the Opposition on why they want to see an end to specific improvements to the quality of service that the Labour Government's actions of the past two and a half years have already brought about. I shall turn later to improvements in my constituency.
Meanwhile, what is the latest wheeze dreamed up by the free marketeers at Conservative central office? What do they have in store for the national health service? We have heard all about the patient's guarantee. When I first heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about that, I let my imagination run wild. Perhaps, I thought, the Tory party has undergone a collective conversion on the road to Damascus. But then I read the small print—which, incidentally, hundreds of thousands more of our pensioners are able to do because of the Labour Government's restoration of free eye tests for the over-60s—and found that the Conservatives are offering nothing but a massive expansion of private health care. The policy is simply a way of fanning out NHS treatment to the private health sector. It is back-door privatisation, an assisted places scheme in health care that will be used to subsidise private medicine for the privileged few.
The only guarantee that patients would receive from a Tory-run NHS would be a health service based on where the patient lives, who the general practitioner happens to be and—worst of all—the patient's ability to pay. Fortunately, while the Tories dream up ever more bizarre ways to flog off the NHS, the Labour Government are introducing modernising reforms alongside massive new investment that will underpin the quality of service. That fact cannot be disputed: my constituents are doing amazingly well out of the Government's commitment to the NHS—

Mr. Wilshire: Mine are not.

Ms King: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way. What is his point?

Mr. Wilshire: I wish that the hon. Lady had listened to what I said. My constituents are suffering as a result of her Government's actions.

Ms King: I find it astonishing that you say that your constituents can be suffering after a—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she must speak in the third person.

Ms King: I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman says that his constituents are suffering under a Government programme that has put £21 billion extra into health, to which his party has objected.

Mr. Brady: Perhaps I can explain the situation both in a way that will please the hon. Lady's side and to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The reason why my hon. Friend's constituents and mine are losing out although the hon. Lady's are gaining is precisely because the Government have changed the


allocation formula. They are transferring money to less privileged areas from other parts of the country. The problem that I have with that is simply that the Labour party was not honest and did not say at the election that that was what it intended to do. It did not tell my constituents that they would lose health service resources.

Ms King: I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman is pointing out the very well known fact that we believe that health resources should be allocated on the basis of need. Yes, we do, absolutely, and we are proud of it. I shall come to the funding allocation—[Interruption.] I have given way, if the hon. Member for Spelthorne will allow me to proceed.
Let us examine the improvements that my constituents have seen. Conservative Members will be aware of improvements up and down the country in Tory-controlled health authorities as well. They are well documented and they have shown a move away from the political engineering in which the previous Government were so quick to engage.
In Bethnal Green and Bow in Tower Hamlets, East London and the City health authority is receiving an additional £37 million to spend on local health services. That is an increase of 8 per cent.—something that could only have been dreamed of under the previous Administration. Yet all the increased funding is opposed by the Conservative party, with its blanket claim that the funding is reckless.
In Tower Hamlets we will get a brand new 900-bed hospital on the site of the Royal London hospital at Whitechapel. That is part of the largest hospital building programme ever known in this country. Again, it is opposed by the Conservative party.
The health action zone in Tower Hamlets is enabling health service professionals to introduce innovative approaches in partnership with other agencies to tackle ill health among our children and young people, to reduce deaths and illness from heart disease and strokes, and to improve the quality of life for those with mental health needs. Again, all of that is opposed by the Conservative party.
Basically, as far as I can work it out, the Tories do not have a policy to improve health. They have a policy of entrenching ill health among ordinary people. So I am rather less interested in what they have to say and instead I would like to look at how we can continue to deal with the health inequalities that the Government have so vigorously been tackling.
First, we need to increase access. That is high up the Government's agenda. Access to health care in the poorest areas is denied to many people. Some of my constituents have problems, whether cultural or language problems or just social exclusion pure and simple. Those problems prevent their access to health care.
A second point about which we do not often hear much is the need to link health care initiatives and regeneration. It is an important point, which the new deal for communities is tackling.
Thirdly, there is a need to break down health departmentalitis. That is one of the main aims of the health action zone. The best thing about the HAZ is that

for the first time the Government have embraced, in a way the previous Government never could or would, the wider definition of ill health and its causes, such as poverty. That brings us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I welcome the Government's approach. If we are to help the poorest people in the poorest areas, we must ensure that the amount of funding that the health authority attracts reflects the number of people who live in an area rather than the number included in the census. I hope that we can ensure that the index of deprivation plays a key part in the funding formula for health authorities.
Finally, the Government, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, have made it clear that these cash increases are not a one-off flash in the pan such as those that the Tories used to throw at us during the year before an election; rather they are sustainable, year on year, to increase access and quality of treatment, so that the NHS is once more the envy of the civilised world.

Mr. David Amess: Yes, there is a crisis in the national health service, but it is not only there. I must inform the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) that there is also a crisis in education in Southend, where class sizes are growing and we do not have enough places for our secondary schoolchildren. There is a crisis in policing—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the health service?"] I shall come to the health service in a moment. There is a crisis in foreign affairs, but, above all, there is a real crisis in the national health service. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) want to intervene from a sedentary position?
Last night, I spent a little time in the House of Commons Library, where I was referred to the comic section. There, I found the Labour party manifesto for the 1997 general election. After reading it, I felt physically sick. Obviously, many people have read that manifesto recently because it was well thumbed. It is headed:
Britain will be better with new Labour.
It states:
Our case is simple: that Britain can and must be better.
Turning to page 20, we read that Labour will "save the NHS". I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will soon return to the Chamber because he needs to read that manifesto. In a moment, I shall deal with both the present and the past ministerial teams.
It is garbage for Labour to claim to be saving the national health service. It should now be stated that after nearly three years of this wretched Labour Government, it will be left to the incoming Conservative Government to save the national health service. After all the drivel that the Secretary of State came out with about the Labour party being responsible for the NHS, I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is somewhat older than the present Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) were quietly able to put him right on precisely who was responsible for the national health service.
In the Labour manifesto, we were told that the NHS
is under threat from the Conservatives. We want to save and modernise the NHS.


The document states that
access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live.
There is much that I could say about that. When we turn to the next page, we see an attractive picture of some chap looking at X-rays, with the caption:
We'll spend more on patient care and less on NHS red tape.
There are also the five daft election pledges, which Labour tells everyone are being honoured, but they are not; it is merely that the goalposts are being completely changed.
Finally, the manifesto refers to
our contract with the people
and states "save the NHS". It continues:
Over the five years of a Labour government … we will rebuild the NHS"—
no; the Conservatives will have to rebuild it—
reducing spending on administration and increasing spending on patient care.
The Labour party—new or old—should be thoroughly ashamed of all that nonsense.
As for the past ministerial team, I become extremely angry when Labour Members try to portray the Conservative party as never having any interest in the health service. I do not have private health insurance, although I wish I did. However, at present, I do not earn enough to afford it—I hope that I am not bombarded with application forms for it.
It is wicked for Labour Members to try to portray the Conservative party as uncaring. It is interesting to note that, after nearly three years in government, Labour Members are becoming annoyed for being blamed for things going wrong in the NHS. For 18 years—day in, day out; week in, week out; and month in, month out—as soon as someone died, it was all the fault of the Conservatives; Labour Members never worried about the effect on the relatives. Any problem in the national health service was the fault of the Conservative Government. After three years, Labour has been found out, and I do not believe a thing that Government Members say.
On 10 July, we were treated to an interview in The Daily Telegraph with the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). When asked about his job, he said:
I'm the Health Secretary, not Jeffrey Archer. I love my job and hope to have it for a very long time.
At the end of the interview, he said:
It's the only job I have ever wanted".
When interviewed on live television about the Dick Whittington job, he had the cheek to say that he had been doing a rather good job as Health Secretary—in case you had not noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Health Select Committee, and when the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers appeared before us I found their so-called responses to our questions deeply disappointing. I am looking forward to dealing with the new ministerial team—I note that the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), is in the Chamber.
My hon. Friends will be aware that the Government are seeking to present a new health care image. We have a new team and a softer, gentler image. There will be no

distasteful jokes told at big functions, which was the habit of the previous incumbent. The Government's approach to health care will be more sophisticated in the future; this is a new start. However, I think that the new incumbent will find it difficult to distance himself from the original policy. He was a Health Minister after the general election, and I have pages and pages detailing his recent remarks as Health Secretary. I do not take anything that Government Members say at face value—I get the truth from the Library—and I think that the new Health Secretary will regret some of his comments.
Labour has undoubtedly broken many promises and let the public down. As shadow Health Secretary, the present Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that there would be no upheaval in the NHS. Yet Dr. Ian Bogle described the pace of the Government's health reforms as "frightening" and said that doctors were
apprehensive and fearful for their future".
The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said that Labour would cut NHS waiting times—that is a joke. In March 1997, 30,100 patients waited more than a year to be seen by a doctor, and that figure has now increased by 63 per cent. Many of my hon. Friends have described the growth in NHS waiting lists.
In Southend, we see the result of Labour's policies at first hand. Since Labour came to power, waiting times for radiology treatment, and particularly barium enemas, have increased dramatically. That is a serious matter. I am advised that the problem has arisen because the hospital has had to divert one radiologist from the barium list to mammogram sessions. That is a direct consequence of the two-week waiting time edict for breast cancer treatment and a good example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
There are no secrets about the health service: unless Labour puts up taxes, which it is loth to do for popularity reasons, it will fall on its sword. I am concerned for Mrs. Sara Ashworth who, at 93, is awaiting a cataract operation. I am advised by my local hospital that she will have to wait between 15 and 18 months—which, at 93, is a hell of a long time. I am very concerned about Mrs. Ena Pluckrose who lives opposite me. She is in her eighties and looks after her husband who is in his nineties. She has been told that she is being moved to the "soon" category, which means that she will be waiting 12 to 15 months.
There is a crisis in the NHS and I blame the previous Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State and, most of all, the leader of the Labour party. The sooner he and this wretched Government lose the next general election, the better.

Dr. Howard Stoate: I have listened to the debate with great attention and interest as this subject is dear to my heart. I am one of only two general practitioners who are Members of the House; the other, who is sitting opposite me, is listening closely as well.
The Opposition have played their usual tricks, which has rather disappointed me. I was hoping for an intelligent and adult debate, as billed by the Opposition spokesman, but unfortunately his words did not match his intentions and what we heard from them was not intelligent or enlightening discussion but a series of tricks to run down the NHS, demoralise staff and frighten patients into believing that the NHS is falling apart around their ears.


The truth is exactly the opposite. I am becoming well versed in parliamentary ways, and I was afraid that that might happen, so I took the precaution of phoning around my health authority, my trust and my local primary care group yesterday and today to find out exactly what is happening in my patch, which is in the West Kent health authority area. It is not noted for its left-wing leanings or views and, in the main, is represented by Conservative Members, so the allegation that the Government are rigging the NHS in favour of Labour-controlled areas is nonsense. I shall give examples to back that up.
My local hospital told me that its waiting list stood at 4,395 on 31 March 1998. By 30 September 1999, the figure was 3,429, which is a 22 per cent. decrease, with no patients waiting more than 18 months and all Department of Health targets being met.
I asked about recruitment, which is often mentioned.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Stoate: I am afraid that I do not have time. I have a lot to get through and, unfortunately, only 10 minutes in which to do it.
I was told that there was no problem in recruiting junior doctors and that consultant posts are generally well filled, apart from one in radiology. There is a national shortage of radiologists and the problem is being addressed by the trust as that post is currently covered by a locum. The trust is short of 70 nurses and has planned a recruitment drive for the new year, but it told me that that figure is considerably better than it was.
Today, West Kent health authority has published its annual report, which is entitled "West Kent's Health" and headlined "A Healthier West Kent". The area contains places such as Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone, which are not represented by Labour Members. Nevertheless, it is doing extremely well in terms of health care. I shall give an example from the document, which was sent to me this morning, concerning winter pressures. Time and again, we have heard that the health service is about to fall apart and that it disintegrates when winter comes on, but last year
schemes were put in place across Dartford and Gravesham, Medway and Swale, Maidstone, and Tunbridge Wells to help community health teams to provide more services to enable people, particularly the elderly, to stay in their own homes. Over £1 million went to Social Services to provide more care packages for people in their own homes … Half a million pounds was spent on additional packages of care from Nursing Homes … Additional money was also made available for Community Hospital beds in the Livingstone Hospital, Dartford and Sittingboume Memorial Hospital … Some innovative schemes were developed, for example a Recuperative Care Scheme in Dartford".
That is all well and good, but did it work?
The document says:
The Hospitals and Community services were very busy over the winter period but this was managed and the effects of the additional pressures created by the flu epidemic and other seasonal demands were minimised. The success of the initiatives was seen in the Acute Trusts enabling them to achieve waiting list reductions and maintain bed availability for non-emergency admissions.
That was during a so-called winter crisis. Obviously, the health authority coped very well indeed.
I contacted Dr. Alasdair Thomson—

Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Stoate: Unfortunately, I do not have time.

Dr. Brand: On that point.

Dr. Stoate: Very well; I give way.

Dr. Brand: I believe that interventions are treated as injury time in these debates. Was the winter pressures money not a one-off arrangement, and does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is sad that there can be no consistent planning in the NHS? These schemes ought to be learned from and incorporated in the proper delivery of service.

Dr. Stoate: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I shall continue to quote the article. It says that this winter
The Health Authority is working with GPs and Trusts to repeat the successful plans of last winter and to improve them further.
That is not my document, but a West Kent health authority document.
As I was saying, I contacted the chairman of my local primary health care group, Dr Alasdair Thomson, a GP in my constituency, about what the group was doing to progress to primary care trust status. A ballot has just been held and 116 ballot papers were sent to GPs in the area; 72.4 per cent. responded and 69 per cent. of those who voted, voted yes. That was an overwhelming majority in favour of proceeding to primary care trust status as soon as possible. Public consultation will begin next week and continue until January.
The group has also started partnership working in many areas, including mental health, and a new psychiatric unit will open in January in my constituency. It has also joined the partnership in action scheme, involving health, social services and user groups of mental health services, radically to improve mental health services in my patch. It is developing clinical pathways with consultants, the idea being that GPs will be able to carry out more investigations more quickly, thereby reducing the number of people passed on to consultants, which in turn will reduce waiting lists and waiting times to see specialists. That is all good, innovative stuff coming out of a primary care group that wants to become a primary care trust as soon as possible.
However, not everything in the health service is perfect. Many hon. Members have made some valuable points about the difficulties. I wish to raise a number of issues about what we can do to improve the health service yet further. Of course, the health service needs more money, and I am sure that the ministerial team will work hard with the Chancellor to free up resources for it as money becomes available in the economy.
Naturally, we must continue to increase efficiency in the health service. Will the Minister say how the Government are getting on with their task of cutting red tape and the money spent on bureaucracy? We must make best use of resources, ensuring that every penny is spent to best effect. That means cost-effectiveness as well as clinical effectiveness. It means looking at clinical outcomes to ensure that best practice is available everywhere, every time. We must also ensure that we get


best value from goods and services. I am alarmed by the rise in the cost of generic drugs due to shortages and difficulties in obtaining them, and I am pleased that my colleagues on the Health Committee have agreed with my suggestion to meet to discuss that issue next week to see what we can do to improve the supply of generic drugs so that primary care groups do not overspend their budgets because of the unavailability of drugs.
We must also make best use of expertise in the health service. I am particularly concerned that community pharmacists are an under-used resource. They are highly trained and qualified and have much to offer. If there are extra winter pressures—for example, because of respiratory infections or flu—who better than community pharmacists to give good, sensible general advice and symptomatic treatment to people suffering from unpleasant, but generally not life-threatening conditions? That would free up clinicians, doctors and nurses to treat people who really need medical and nursing help and the few who may need hospital treatment. I am working with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) to try to set up an all-party pharmacists group in this House. It will look at exactly that issue and try to raise awareness of how community pharmacists could be used to best effect within the health service.
Factors outside the health service can also affect health. We have already heard tonight that public health is a huge issue. It is not just about the NHS but includes many other aspects of society as we seek to improve the nation's health. We have heard about the smoking epidemic and the fact that every five minutes someone in this country dies from a smoking-related illness. We are beginning to find out that children are becoming fatter and less active because their diets do not necessarily suit them, and they are storing up the possibility of ill health in later life. That must be tackled. We must ensure that exercise programmes are geared to young people in schools so that they achieve maximum fitness.
We have heard that poor health is closely related to poverty, social circumstances, life chances and poor education. I know that the new Minister responsible for public health is working hard on that. All the different strands of government should be brought together to ensure that health is a matter not just for the health service but for the whole Government.
I believe that the NHS is under healthy pressure. Pressure is often a dynamic force for change. If properly harnessed, that pressure can be the driving engine of meaningful change, because we must respond to changing needs in society, changing expectations and the fact that people rightly expect more from the health service. They are entitled to more from the health service and, under this Government, they will get more from the health service.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench on their appointments. I wish them well, but I think that they are up against it. That became all too evident when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) talk about the cuts in his constituency.
If hon. Members are in doubt about statistics, they tend to go to the House of Commons Library. I did just that before the debate. I discovered—there may be some comfort for the Minister—that, as at 31 March 1997,

the waiting list for patient admissions to the NHS trusts in Leicestershire stood at 16,546 and, by the end of June 1999, the list was 16,539. The Government have achieved a reduction in the waiting list of seven patients. However, there had been an increase of 514, or 3.2 per cent., over the previous quarter, which covers the period since the ending of fundholding on 1 April this year.
The trend is upwards, and perhaps that is not surprising given what has happened at Hinckley Sunnyside hospital in my constituency. Owing to a lack of funding, 10 rehabilitation beds have been closed at Hinckley Sunnyside hospital, where staff have an excellent record of getting patients back into the community. Six of those beds have been moved to Hinckley and District hospital through the redesignation of six surgical beds for geriatric rehabilitation. That is a reduction in provision for the ever-increasing need for rehabilitation beds, and a reduction in the number of in-patient beds for local people to have operations locally without having to go to Leicester.
The Secretary of State said that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne had to do with the need to move patients around. That is not the problem. The problem is to do with funding in Hinckley, where there is not enough money to go round. I have received a letter about a 45-year-old stroke victim who cannot get a rehabilitation bed at Sunnyside, and must go to Leicester general hospital, which involves a difficult journey on public transport. Is that what the Secretary of State meant, because it is not what we need? People will face considerable problems if they have to take a half-hour journey to Leicester.
I want to raise two key issues: the Government's central funding policy and the position of primary care groups post fundholding. The Government have pledged to provide equity in funding across the nation. The situation in Leicestershire is catastrophic. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will recognise that. We are right at the bottom of the heap, and suffer from an historic problem of underfunding.
For the financial year 1999–2000, Leicestershire health authority has a funding allocation of £517 million compared with a target funding allocation of £530 million, so there is a gap of £13 million. The Government will not be able to make their policy work in Leicestershire unless the Secretary of State can find more money. I have spoken to the chairman and chief executive of the health authority, and they are cobbling things together by shifting money around from the old fundholding budget, but that will not work in the long term. Leicestershire spends £4 million less on community services than the average health authority.
The second big issue is the transition to primary care groups. In Hinckley, doctors rightly refused to join the primary care group board, and instead are opting to advise through the medical advisory panel. The problem for doctors is that they are not being given any real authority, and are not being allowed to exercise control over financial decisions. They said from the outset that they knew that the funding of primary care groups entailed the handing over of their fundholding money, and that they would be asked to administer and, as members, give tacit approval to what would increasingly become inadequate funding.
I have been told privately that the Hinckley model is likely to become a model for the health service in the future. Doctors have refused to take on the burden that the Government wanted to impose on them, but are making a contribution through an advisory panel.
One of the problems that we have had in Hinckley since the demise of fundholding has been its impact on minor operations carried out by GPs at Hinckley and District hospital. General practitioners in my constituency have complained that the number of minor operations at Hinckley hospital has dried up. The Minister should take that on board. In April 1999, the waiting list stood at nil; since the cessation of fundholding, it has become fairly substantial, and there has been a tremendous knock-on effect, in that operations must now be performed at Leicester general hospital and the Leicester royal infirmary. The waiting list problem—the problem that the Minister and the Secretary of State want to solve—is being exacerbated by the reduction to zero in the number of minor operations at Hinckley hospital. We now have a six-month waiting list, which is growing.
Under the new arrangements for primary care groups, scheduled operations under fundholding have been stopped. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred to the policy of privatisation; I wonder how she will feel about this. A constituent of mine, Isabel Edgar, was due to have a second hip operation under the new primary care group arrangements. The operation had been scheduled under fundholding. She was told, "This is not possible: we will not do it." She has therefore had to have the operation done privately. Is that the kind of privatisation to which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow was referring?
One of the offices that I hold as a Back Bencher is treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine. In that capacity, I recently visited Bath to look at the new Bath spa project, which I commend to the Minister. Doctors whom I met there told me that, when they were fundholding, they were able to save 25 per cent. of their drug budgets through efficient management. That allowed them to offer a three-month wait for all operations, as well as to develop a full complementary medical team on their premises. They had homeopaths, hypnotherapists, herbalists, an osteopath and an acupuncturist.
Since the introduction of primary care groups—I beg the Minister to listen to this—complementary and alternative medical therapies are not being offered. There is a fundamental problem. People come to our surgeries saying that they can no longer benefit from homeopathy, herbal medicine, healing and other therapies. That represents a serious crisis for the Government. It will not be possible to meet the exponential increase in demand for complementary and alternative medicine, and the Minister must deal with that, because it is a vital issue.
At health questions last week, I raised the issue of how the prison service is dealing with complementary and alternative medicine. The Government have cut the list of services available from about 20 to about six. I visited Coldingley prison, and saw prisoners being treated there. One, a very violent man, had been treated by a cranial osteopath who had massaged and adjusted his skull plates. Another had received hands-on healing to channel energy.

Both had responded well, but, although osteopathy remains on the list, cranial osteopathy is a different matter.
Let me draw the Government's attention to a newspaper cutting from The Times of 12 October in which someone is quoted as saying:
I don't know how healing works, but it helped my son.
The lady says:
Sam spent his last 18 months at home, going to school, being a normal boy.
The boy, a cancer patient, went into remission after someone channelled energy to him through the use of hands. Such services should be available not just to prisoners, but in the health service. If the Minister wants to cut his budgets and to secure a wider service, he should draw on the services of complementary practitioners, many of whom offer their services free.
What about the future? The level of confidence in the NHS can be measured by a leaflet that has been dropped in my constituency today advertising Nuneaton private hospital and asking "Why Wait?" The truth is out: the waiting time for first out-patient appointments is up, and the waiting time for operations is up. I ask the Minister to note that. We look forward to better funding in Leicestershire.

Mr. Philip Hammond: It has turned out to be a rather predictable debate. The Secretary of State for Health set the tone. He told us that waiting lists were down. That is clearly incorrect, given the total number of people who are waiting for treatment, or specialist consultation. He told us that the money that he has announced over the past couple of weeks is "new money." That is clearly incorrect as well. It is part of the £21 billion that was announced with so much fanfare last year. Again, he misrepresented Conservative policy. I find it odd that all the professions and patient organisations, and the great majority of informed commentators, agree with us that the waiting list initiative is a disaster.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) gave a cameo of the position in many parts of the country: a funding crisis, services being cut and dissatisfaction among professionals and patients alike.
That was in stark contrast with the view of the world that was given by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who seems to have a narrow, at best boroughwide, view of what is happening in the health service. All I can say to her—my right hon. and hon. Friends would echo it—is good luck to her constituents if they have been so lucky in the lottery of the Government's NHS funding formula.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) treated us to his usual review of history, with scarcely a glance to the future. On the only specific question that he asked, he based his position on the fallacy that there would be no complementarity between the private and public sectors.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) criticised the motion, but did not bother to table an amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. He argued for greater health spending as a proportion of gross


domestic product. We would agree with that, but he failed to tell us what split he would like between tax-funded and privately funded spending and, therefore, what income tax increase his party would propose at the next general election.
The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) accused us of not talking about the Government's additional spending plans for the NHS and challenged us to say what our approach would be. I am happy to confirm what it would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has already stated it, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she was the shadow spokeswoman.
The next Conservative Government will increase tax-funded spending on the NHS in real terms year on year, but we do not believe that that is enough to deliver the health service that people need and deserve as we go into the 21st century. That is why we alone are looking for innovative solutions that will add to—supplement, not supplant—the NHS' s work.
As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made a fine and rousing speech. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) made at least one important point, which I am happy to endorse: community pharmacists are an under-used resource. I wish that he had put that point to the Government before they jumped in with both feet in support of NHS Direct, an untried and untested idea.
The overall picture that has been painted in the debate is depressing. We have shown the position after two and a half years of government by a party that, in opposition, posed as the NHS's saviour. It is a picture, too, of shocking complacency among Labour Members. Who would have believed just a couple of years ago that, in opinion polls, 41 per cent. of people would tell pollsters that the NHS had got worse under Labour; that staff morale would be at record lows; that waiting lists overall would be completely out of control; and that half the NHS trusts would face massive deficits? Almost all PCGs have overspent, with the likelihood of cuts in drug prescribing later this year, despite the Secretary of State's pledge when he was Minister of State, Department of Health that patients would not be denied the drugs that they needed.
Clinical priorities are being distorted throughout the system. Patients are being deceived and hospitals are struggling to meet targets, with the sickest people often being put at the back of the queue in consequence. Does it please the Minister to think that, this very week, one of the largest and greatest teaching hospitals in London is having a blitz on grommets, possibly the cheapest and certainly the least clinically proven surgical intervention available, simply to meet the numbers that they need to meet to access a bonus?
In the face of all that, we have a Government who have not a clue of what their policy or strategy should be. They have their head firmly in the sand. They are perpetuating the myth, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the NHS can deliver both excellence and comprehensiveness across the range of all demands, and further still the myth that, if the NHS cannot afford something, that something is valueless and should not be available from any other source.
The Government cannot decide whether they are trying stimulate demand, with 24-hour access and walk-in centres, or manage demand by controlling referrals and

banning drugs. Indeed, the collective mind of the Government has become so confused on the matter that the previous Secretary of State, in his speech to the Labour party conference, seemed to suggest that the main purpose of the NHS was to compete with the private sector.
The appointment of a new Secretary of State might have been an opportunity for genuine change—a chance to put behind us the failed policies of the past two and a half years, and embark on a new and coherent approach to mapping out the future of our national health service. However, the Secretary of State has arrived already shackled by the Prime Minister's political pledge, and hemmed in by an ideological refusal to learn from the examples of the health care delivery systems of our European neighbours.
We have learned from this debate that there will be no change in the old Labour approach to health care. The waiting list pledge subordinates clinical to political priorities, and makes the sickest wait the longest. It turns the ethic of the national health service on its head. However, far from delivering on the waiting list pledge, as the Prime Minister's amendment might suggest, and based on their own fiddled figures, the Government have presided over a 170,000 increase in the total number of people waiting both for treatment and for first specialist consultation in the national health service.
In opposition, Labour Members said that they would spend £100 million to achieve a 100,000 reduction in the waiting list. In government, they have already spent £780 million to achieve a 170,000 increase. It is no wonder perhaps that the previous Secretary of State was sacked. I only hope that he never gets the chance to inflict on the bus queues of London what he has inflicted on the waiting lists of the national health service.
The truth is that, as long as the waiting list pledge remains the Government's key target—the one on which they base the rewards and penalties that they levy on hospital trusts—all other announcements are a zero-sum game; the rhetorical equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The facts are simple, and the Secretary of State knows them, but he cannot respond to them because he is a hostage to the Prime Minister's political pledge.
The NHS has limited resources and cannot manage now on those resources. If the waiting list initiative continues, any other focus or initiative must be at the expense of something else. Therefore, when the Secretary of State tells us that he is focusing on coronary heart disease, cancer and mental health, he must tell us also, if the waiting list initiative is to remain, what will bear the burden—which services will be discontinued or cut to finance those initiatives?
In focusing on the killer diseases, the Secretary of State is cherry-picking from the Conservatives's patients guarantee. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has proposed precisely that the most serious complaint should be treated first, and that clinical priority should be the sole basis of running the national health service. He has also said that he would scrap the damaging waiting list initiative. He has had the courage and honesty to acknowledge that shorter waiting times for those who are most seriously ill will mean that those with more trivial conditions will have to take their place in the queue for treatment in the national health service. Surely,


the rational way to run a health service is to deal with the sickest people first, but that is not the way that it works under the waiting list initiative.
The Secretary of State ignores the evidence all around him of chaos and demoralisation, and piles on more targets without scrapping the old ones. He displayed a frightening complacency when he told us last year that we have the best health service in the world. That is a health service which produces twice as many coronary heart disease deaths per 100,000 population as France; delivers half the lung cancer survival rate of Germany; and is pipped only by Romania for bottom place in a Europewide league table on the availability of renal dialysis. It is a system that delivers us the lowest number of doctors per thousand of population of any country in the European Union, and the lowest health spending as a percentage of gross domestic product.
If that is the health care system that the Secretary of State thinks that Britain deserves in the 21st century, that is a measure of the contempt in which this Government holds the British people.
The Government's insistence that the NHS can meet every last demand of every last person is a cruel deception which induces a dangerous complacency and becomes apparent only when it is too late. People are discovering that the NHS is not there for them, and the increasing numbers of elderly people using their life savings to pay privately for drugs and operations will testify to that.
We have set out our policy—transparent and explicit about the resource constraints on the system, putting the sickest at the front of the queue and letting doctors, not politicians, decide the priorities. That is a commonsense approach.
The Secretary of State is trying to ride two bicycles at the same time. He is trying to pursue the contradictory agendas of the Prime Minister's failed waiting list initiative and his own well-meaning, but ultimately doomed, killer disease initiative. The Secretary of State is not stupid, and he knows that he can effectively refocus the NHS towards the killer diseases only if the Prime Minister's misguided and damaging pledge is dropped.
It is time for the Government to grasp that nettle and start the real debate on how to resource the NHS for the 21st century—something about which we heard nothing from the Government this evening. They should stop letting the British people and the staff of the NHS pay the price for the Prime Minister's refusal to acknowledge what every responsible body has told the Government—that the waiting list pledge was a grave error, the pursuit of which is causing serious and lasting damage to our national health service.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) described the debate as predictable. I would prefer to describe it as fairly comprehensive. We have heard nine Back-Bench speeches, beginning with the speech by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). Much to the surprise of my right hon. and hon. Friends, she began with an apology. It was not, however, the one that many patients and the public

would have liked her to make. We would have preferred her to apologise for her stewardship of the NHS. Sadly, she declined to do so.
Much to our surprise, the right hon. Lady dismissed NHS Direct as trivial and marginal. She should say that to the 500,000 people who have used the service, and she could learn about the contribution that the nurse-led service has made for many people.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the Minister believe that the two children with head injuries who were not seen within one and a half hours at the local accident and emergency department and finally went home could have been helped by NHS Direct?

Mr. Hutton: Obviously, I do not have the details of that case. If the right hon. Lady refers it to me, I will look into it. However, lives have been saved as a result of NHS Direct, and it was sad and unfortunate that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends declined to acknowledge that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned the importance of public health—rightly so—and the importance that we have placed on tackling health inequalities. He referred also to "The Common Sense Revolution"—a document recently published by the official Opposition. It is true to say that only in the modern Tory party could common sense ever be described as revolutionary.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) made a thoughtful speech, but he was weak on the arithmetic and in his appreciation of the £21 billion of additional resources going into the NHS over the next three years. Like many Opposition Members, he called for more money to be spent on the national health service, but when asked by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, he declined to say how much more he wanted to spend.
At the election, the Liberal Democrats promised to spend an extra £540 million per year on the national health service. The hon. Member for North Devon might want to contradict that. We have done significantly better, exceeding that target within the first two and a half years of the Parliament, even without taking into account the additional resources available to the NHS under the comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman refers to pledges at the election. They were on top of NHS inflation. The Government have tried to dupe the nation by bundling up NHS inflation and holding it back until the second half of the Parliament to make people think that the money was on top of what they should have been expecting. The fact is that by the end of this Parliament, the Government will not have increased health service spending as much as the Conservatives did when they were in office.

Mr. Hutton: I repeat, I do not think that arithmetic is the hon. Gentleman's strong point. He is wrong about the figures.
However, the hon. Gentleman coined a good soundbite about the new Tory policies on the national health service, saying that they would replace the postcode lottery that we inherited with a new tax code lottery. That would be the effect of Conservative policies. They will be rumbled and rejected by the people of this country.
I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) for the action that we have taken to improve mental health services, particularly his welcome for the national service framework that we published recently. It will help to drive up standards and improve the quality of care for millions of people who suffer from mental health problems and turn to the national health service for support. I am also grateful for his support for our initiative on health action zones.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) complained about propaganda and then indulged in a serious dose of it. He has probably recently arrived in the Chamber with copies of the press release that I am sure he had written before he made his speech. We all look forward to reading that press release in his local papers.

Mr. Wilshire: That is yet another Labour lie. The Minister might care to know that I have with me a petition signed by 25,000 of my constituents and that his party in my constituency helped to organise it, because even the local Labour party thinks that he is wrong.

Mr. Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not take his word for that. I should like to point out some of the facts to which he conveniently failed to refer. The cash growth for West Surrey health authority this year is nearly £20 million, which is a 3 per cent. real terms increase. He and other Conservatives who referred to the situation in Surrey conveniently forgot to refer to the £9 million that is going into the new accident and emergency department at St. Peter's hospital, or the £4 million scheme that has now been approved to redevelop the Weybridge community hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is unfortunate but predictable that the good news stories about the NHS always slip through the fingers of Conservative Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made a conciliatory speech, but she also skilfully shot the Tory fox, rumbling the real implications of their new policies on the national health service. We know what their intentions are and they have been made clear for everyone to see. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, she was right to emphasise the importance of reducing health inequalities and the benefits of the health action zone in her constituency. We have not forgotten that the Conservatives were consistently unable to bring themselves to talk about the health inequalities that were the legacy of their policies. We are determined to tackle the problems.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), in a typical speech, covered a lot of ground very quickly. Intriguingly, he referred to a foreign affairs crisis in Southend. I am sure that we would all like to hear from him what he had in mind. He also kindly reminded the House of some of our election promises, and I can tell him, and all other hon. Members, that we are meeting those promises and will keep them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), in a very good speech, referred to the improvements in the national health service in his county of Kent, putting some of the gloom and doom spread by the Conservative party into some sort of context. My hon. Friend asked how successful we had been at cutting red tape and transferring resources to front-line care, and I can tell him that nearly £200 million has already been transferred to front-line services.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that he wanted to add to health spending by encouraging more private health care, but his sums simply do not add up. When we were debating the Health Bill in Standing Committee, he said that health spending in the United Kingdom would have to increase by 2, 3 or 4 per cent. of GDP. Current spending on health care in the United Kingdom is about £48 billion—5.8 per cent. of GDP—and an extra 3 to 4 per cent. of GDP spent on health would require at least an extra £24 billion.
If we assume, as we should, that currently 3.2 million people spend £1.7 million on private health insurance, at an average annual payment of £531, the hon. Gentleman's policy could be delivered only if we increased the number of people covered by private health insurance from 3.2 million to 45 million. That means almost every adult person in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say that they do not intend their policies to result in compulsory private health insurance, but that does not add up. The only other way to meet the hon. Gentleman's promise to raise £24 billion would be to increase the average annual payment for private health insurance from £531 to £7,500.
Obviously, the Conservatives have lost some of the talents and skills necessary to run a country and be in government, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of urgency, he goes away, does his sums again and comes back with something slightly more credible. Throughout the debate we have heard nothing from the Conservative party that could be described as credible.

Mr. Hammond: rose—

Mr. Hutton: No; I have given way three times to Conservative Members, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman gave way once.
The debate has highlighted some important differences between the Government and the Opposition concerning the future of the national health service. We want a service in which everyone can have confidence, which provides first class treatment and care to all who need it. The Conservatives want the NHS to be a second-line service for those who cannot afford to buy private health care. We want to modernise the NHS so that it can provide faster and better services where and when people want them. The Conservatives oppose all those changes.
The Tories opposed the new primary care walk-in centres. They oppose the appointment of a senior specialist to direct our fight against cancer. They do not want the number of people on waiting lists to be cut, and they oppose putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat through primary care groups, which are now up and running. They oppose the new public health strategy, and they described our commitment to spend an extra £21 billion on the NHS as reckless. Their position on all those issues is as dishonest as it is untenable. They claim to support the NHS, but they undermine it at every available turn.
The Conservatives say that the NHS cannot do everything, yet they oppose all attempts to improve the ability of the service to respond more quickly and


effectively to patients' needs. We say that the NHS needs to be modernised so that it can provide the fast, convenient, high quality service that people want—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 341.

Division No. 276]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heald, Oliver


Amess, David
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Horam, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Blunt, Crispin
Jenkin, Bernard


Body, Sir Richard
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Brady, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brazier, Julian
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Butterfill, John
Lidington, David


Cash, William
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Llwyd, Elfyn


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Luff, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Collins, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Madel, Sir David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Maples, John



Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan, Alan
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Greenway, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Grieve, Dominic
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline




Spicer, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Swayne, Desmond
Whittingdale, John


Syms, Robert
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willetts, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Townend, John
Woodward, Shaun


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Tyrie, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Walter, Robert
Mr. Stephen Day.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chidgey, David


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allan, Richard



Allen, Graham
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Ballard, Jackie
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Beard, Nigel
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cooper, Yvette


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corston, Ms Jean


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cotter, Brian


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blears, Ms Hazel



Blizzard, Bob
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Breed, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Donohoe, Brian H


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Doran, Frank


Burgon, Colin
Dowd, Jim


Burstow, Paul
Drew, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cann, Jamie
Ennis, Jeff


Caplin, Ivor
Etherington, Bill


Casale, Roger
Fearn, Ronnie


Caton, Martin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cawsey, Ian
Fisher, Mark


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chaytor, David
Fitzsimons, Lorna




Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lepper, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Livingstone, Ken


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livsey, Richard


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lock, David


Godsiff, Roger
Love, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCabe, Steve


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grant, Bernie
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McIsaac, Shona


Gunnell, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hancock, Mike
McNamara, Kevin


Hanson, David
McNulty, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
MacShane, Denis


Harvey, Nick
McWalter, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hood, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Hoon, Geoffrey
Merron, Gillian


Hope, Phil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Howells, Dr Kim
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Moore, Michael


Hutton, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Illsley, Eric
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jamieson, David
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Oaten, Mark



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Olner, Bill


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Neill, Martin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kemp, Fraser
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pendry, Tom


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Plaskitt, James


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pollard, Kerry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pond, Chris




Pope, Greg
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Prosser, Gwyn
Snape, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Soley, Clive


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Southworth, Ms Helen


Quinn, Lawrie
Spellar, John


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Squire, Ms Rachel


Rammell, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Rapson, Syd
Steinberg, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Stevenson, George


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Rendel, David
Stoate, Dr Howard


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Rogers, Allan
Stringer, Graham


Rooker, Jeff
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rooney, Terry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ruane, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ruddock, Joan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Salter, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Sanders, Adrian
Tipping, Paddy


Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sawford, Phil
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Trickett, Jon


Shaw, Jonathan
Truswell, Paul


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)




Tyler, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Tynan, Bill
Willis, Phil


Vaz, Keith
Wills, Michael


Vis, Dr Rudi
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wise, Audrey


Wareing, Robert N
Wood, Mike


Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


Webb, Steve
Worthington, Tony


White, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. David Clelland and


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Division No. 277]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fox, Dr Liam


Allan, Richard
Fraser, Christopher


Amess, David
Garnier, Edward


Ancram, Fit Hon Michael
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gibb, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Baldry, Tony
Gray, James
 

Ballard, Jackie
Green, Damian


Beggs, Roy
Greenway, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Grieve, Dominic


Bercow, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Blunt, Crispin
Hammond, Philip


Body, Sir Richard
Hancock, Mike


Boswell, Tim
Harris, Dr Evan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Harvey, Nick


Brady, Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brand, Dr Peter
Hayes, John


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Burns, Simon
Horam, John


Burstow, Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cash, William
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Bernard


Clappison, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)



Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Collins, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Colvin, Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cotter, Brian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cran, James
Lansley, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Letwin, Oliver


Dafis, Cynog
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Livsey, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Loughton, Tim


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Feam, Ronnie
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew:


Flight, Howard
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David





Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Streeter, Gary


Mates, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Syms, Robert


May, Mrs Theresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Oaten, Mark
Tonge, Dr Jenny


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Townend, John


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Paterson, Owen
Tyler, Paul


Pickles, Eric
Tyrie, Andrew


Prior, David
Viggers, Peter


Randall, John
Walter, Robert


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles


Rendel, David
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Webb, Steve


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


St Aubyn, Nick
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Sanders, Adrian
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Willetts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Willis, Phil


Shepherd, Richard
Wilshire, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Woodward, Shaun


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Stephen Day.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Browne, Desmond


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burden, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Burgon, Colin


Alexander, Douglas
Butler, Mrs Christine


Allen, Graham
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Austin, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Battle, John
Cann, Jamie


Bayley, Hugh
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Casale, Roger


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Caton, Martin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cawsey, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)



Chaytor, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blizzard, Bob
Clelland, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clwyd, Ann


Boateng, Paul
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cohen, Harry


Bradshaw, Ben
Coleman, Iain


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Colman, Tony


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Connarty, Michael


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)






Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dobbin, Jim



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim



Drew David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Khabra, Piara S


Ennis, Jeff
Kidney, David


Etherington, Bill
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline



Follett, Barbara
Lepper, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gapes, Mike
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAllion, John


Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John
Macdonald, Calum


Gunnell, John
McDonnell, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hamnan, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McNamara, Kevin


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hesford, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hill, Keith Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hoey, Kate
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan





Merron, Gillian
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moffatt, Laura



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Hara, Eddie
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Todd, Mark


Pond, Chris
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon


Powell, Sir Raymond
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis (Wotverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Purchase Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quin Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tynan Bill


Quinn, Lawrie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wallev Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
White Brian


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roy, Frank
Wills, Michael


Ruane, Chris
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wise, Audrey


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Salter, Martin
Woolas, Phil


Sarwar, Mohammad
Worthington, Tony


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Shaw, Jonathan



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Singh, Marsha
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 167

Division No. 278]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cummings, John


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Alexander, Douglas



Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Austin, John
Darvill, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Begg, Miss Anne
Dawson, Hilton


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dobbin, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bennett, Andrew F
Doran, Frank


Benton, Joe
Dowd, Jim


Berningham, Gerald
Drew, David


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Best, Harold
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Betts, Clive
Edwards, Huw


Blackman, Liz
Efford, Clive


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blizzard, Bob
Ennis, Jeff


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Etherington, Bill


Boateng, Paul
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burgon, Colin
Fyfe, Maria


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hanson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesfond, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corston, Ms Jean
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cranston, Ross
Howells, Dr Kim


Crausby, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)





Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hurst, Alan
Morley, Elliot


Hutton, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Illsley, Eric
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jenkins, Brian
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Hara, Eddie



Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskrtt, James


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gorton (Pendle)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Lepper, David
Purchase, Ken


Leslie, Christopher
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Levitt, Tom
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lock, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Love, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Rowlands, Ted


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ruane, Chris



Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McNulty, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWalter, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin
Stevenson, George


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stoate, Dr Howard






Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Walley, Ms Joan


Stringer, Graham
Ward, Ms Claire


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Timms, Stephen
Wills, Michael


Tipping, Paddy
Winnick, David


Todd, Mark
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Touhig, Don
Wise, Audrey


Trickett, Jon
Wood, Mike


Truswell, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Tynan, Bill
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Allan, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Amess, David
Fox, Dr Liam


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Garnier, Edward


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Ballard, Jackie
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Beggs, Roy
Green, Damian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, Rt Hon William


Blunt, Crispin
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hancock, Mike


Brady, Graham
Harris, Dr Evan


Brand, Dr Peter
Harvey, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayes, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heald, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burstow, Paul
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Butterfill, John
Horam, John


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Collins, Tim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Cotter, Brian
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cran, James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Curry, Rt Hon David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Dafis, Cynog
Lansley, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Livsey, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel
Loughton, Tim


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John





McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Swayne, Desmond


Maples, John
Syms, Robert


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Oaten, Mark
Townend, John


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Tyler, Paul


Paterson, Owen
Tyrie, Andrew


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Prior, David
Walter, Robert


Randall, John
Wardle, Charles


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Rendel, David
Webb, Steve


Robathan, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wilkinson, John


Ruffley, David
Willetts, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Willis, Phil


St Aubyn, Nick
Wilshire, David


Sanders, Adrian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Woodward, Shaun


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House applauds the dedication, skill and professionalism of the staff of the National Health Service but regrets that Her Majesty's Opposition seek to undermine the National Health Service at every turn; welcomes the Government's success in cutting waiting lists in line with its manifesto pledge and its programme to make services faster and more convenient; supports the Government's commitment to modernise cancer, heart disease and mental health services, and to ensure high standards of National Health Service care everywhere; notes that a modernised National Health Service funded through taxation and offering treatment according to need not ability to pay is both fairer and more efficient than private alternatives supported by the Opposition; and so believes that the National Health Service should be modernised not privatised.

PETITION

Ashford Hospital

Mr. David Wilshire: I have a petition from my Spelthorne constituents, opposing the savaging of services at Ashford hospital. It is signed by 25,000 local people and it was backed by all three main political parties—that means that my local Labour party does not support its own Government.
The petition opposes the cuts of £20 million demanded by the Government; it opposes the closure of the accident and emergency department at Ashford hospital and of all its intensive care unit beds. It calls for proper Government funding of local health services in my constituency and for the scrapping of the cuts proposed by West Surrey health authority.
What is happening to the national health service in my constituency is a disgrace. This petition proves the depth of anger felt by my constituents.
To lie upon the Table.

Electrical Contracting Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. John McAllion: The subject of the debate is Government policy towards the joint industry board for the electrical contracting industry—the JIB. When I first became involved with the JIB 10 years ago, I was approached by my constituent, Mr. Frank Graham. He is an electrician and, at that time, he was a member of the EETPU—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union—and a JIB-graded employee. Initially, his concerns centred on a dispute that took place at Aldermaston in 1989 and which was handled by the JIB. Frank was one of 129 men who were sacked during the dispute. Subsequently, he was most unhappy with the way in which the JIB handled the dispute and he sought the assistance of his local Member of Parliament—that is the reason for my involvement.
Over the years, my concern over the JIB—and that of Frank Graham—has grown wider and deeper than the board's handling of that dispute in 1989. Together, Frank Graham and I have entered into a massive correspondence with the JIB itself, the Electrical Contractors Association, the EETPU, successive Ministers, the certification officer for trade unions, the commissioner for the rights of trade unions, the then Select Committee on Education and Employment, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the parliamentary ombudsman.
There is not enough time to go into all that correspondence in detail. I shall focus on what I believe to be the big issues affecting Government policy, but I must first put the JIB into a political and historical context.
The 1950s and early 1960s were a time of great stress and bitter strife within the electrical contracting industry. At that time, the union with sole negotiating rights in the sector was the ETU, which later became the EETPU. That union was riven by internal battles between right and left, which culminated in the infamous ballot-rigging case that led to the takeover of the union by its leading right-wing members, particularly Mr. Frank Chapple and his close ally, Mr. Eric Hammond.
The new leadership was determined to consolidate right-wing control of the union and to end what it believed to be confrontation between employers and employees. Militant action was discouraged and strikes were reduced from 36,800 man days lost in 1962 to just 9,900 days lost in 1966. Building upon the new moderate approach, the leadership resolved to import from the United States a new system for running the electrical contracting industry. The new model was called the joint industry board, and it had been operating in New York for more than 20 years.
Essentially, the New York JIB was a sweetheart deal between employers and the union to regulate and control the electrical contracting industry in the city. In return for the union's disciplining its members, improving productivity and eliminating strikes, the employers delivered an agreed package of pay, welfare benefits and training. The EETPU and the ECA signed a legally binding agreement in 1967 which introduced the JIB into British industrial relations for the first time. At the time, Eric Hammond boasted that it was his "first revolution" in the operation of trade unions in Britain.
The JIB has only two permanent or true members: the respective executive committees of the EETPU and the ECA. Each of them appoint the members of the ruling body of the JIB: its national board. The executive committees of the EETPU and the ECA are effectively the JIB. They control an impressive bureaucracy and have their own chief executive, secretary, industrial relations officer and other specialist staff. In the late 1960s, they had an annual income of more than £1 million and annual running costs of £100,000. With inflation, those figures would be much higher today. They also own buildings and assets and have their own employment agency. They control and regulate one of the most important industrial sectors in the British economy. The JIB matters, and that is why I have sought this debate tonight.
What has this to do with Government policy? From its inception, the JIB was registered as a trade union, but the legality of such registration was always in doubt. When it was first registered in 1967, the chief registrar noted in his annual report that it was an unusual type of registered trade union as it included representatives of both employees and employers. As I understand it, employment legislation has never allowed for the registration of a hybrid body such as the JIB.
The JIB was conscious of the doubtful legal basis of its registration as a trade union. When Frank Graham and I challenged it about its registration, it claimed initially to have received special dispensation to register in 1968 from the then Minister for Labour, Mr. Ray Gunter. The JIB made that claim in letters to the certification officer and to the Chairman of the Employment Sub-Committee, but the claim is bogus. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, told me in a letter in 1996 that he could find no reference to such dispensation in the Department's records. He added that he could find no statutory basis—past or present—under which anyone in any Government could have given such a dispensation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), then a Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, later confirmed to me in writing that the Department
does not have, nor has it seen, any evidence supporting the view that any Minister ever granted any such dispensation.
If successive Tory and Labour Ministers are to be believed, we must conclude that the JIB misled the Chairman of the Employment Sub-Committee and the certification officer in claiming special ministerial dispensation to register as a trade union. I believe that the time has come for someone in Government to hold the JIB to account for seriously misleading senior Members of the House.
There are other concerns over the JIB's registration as a trade union. Why did successive registrars of friendly societies and certification officers allow an organisation that was clearly not a trade union to register as a trade union? Let me refer to some of the extensive correspondence that I have had with the certification officer. In a letter dated 23 October 1990, he writes of the JIB that
as the organisation consists mainly of workers, it meets the definition of a trade union as set out in … the 1974 Act.
Another letter to me dated 10 January 1991 says:
I have no reason to doubt the status of the JIB as a listed trade union.

The certification officer based those views on information supplied to him by the JIB. I have correspondence in which it claims to have three categories of member: the constituent parties to the JIB—effectively the executive committees of the ECA and the EETPU; more than 2,000 employer participant members; and more than 30,000 employee participant members. On the basis of those figures, he ruled that the JIB was a body mainly consisting of workers and therefore eligible to be listed as a trade union.
Right up to May 1991, that line was defended solidly by the JIB and the certification officer, but in June 1991 Frank Graham complained to him that, as a listed trade union, the JIB was in breach of the Trade Union Act 1984, which requires trade unions to elect their principal executive committees. The JIB's principal executive committee—the national board—is appointed, not elected by the members.
The certification officer, because of Frank's complaint, was required to write to the JIB to ask why its 30,000 employee participant members had not been allowed their legal right to elect the principal executive committee of the union to which they belonged. In its reply dated 17 June 1991, the JIB was forced to come clean and it was made clear that only the two constituent members—the ECA and the EETPU—were permanent or true members of the JIB. In its own words, the employee and employer members were not full members. Their participation in the JIB was in the nature of
transient affiliation rather than true membership of the JIB.
That statement changed everything. On 23 July 1991, the certification officer wrote that, based on the JIB's own admission, it followed that the JIB was not a trade union and would have to be deregistered. More importantly, he informed the JIB that he intended to hold a public hearing on Frank Graham's complaint. Within a month of receiving that letter, the JIB threw in the towel and asked to be removed from the list of trade unions. It simply was not prepared to appear at any public hearing to defend its status as a registered trade union.
We must remember that only three months previously, the JIB and the certification officer had resolutely defended the JIB's status as a trade union; not any more, under the pressure of a public hearing. In a later letter, the certification officer wrote to Frank Graham:
I remain of the view that the JIB is not and probably never was a trade union.
Why does any of this matter? Is it not a matter of concern for the Government that between 1967 and 1972, and again between 1974 and 1991, an organisation that was clearly not a trade union was allowed to register as a trade union without challenge from anyone in authority? There was no challenge from the registrar of friendly societies, certification officers or any Minister, despite the fact that Ministers and certification officers had been made aware of Frank Graham's concerns on this issue. Now that we know the JIB to have been illegally registered for so long, will no one in the Government hold it to account for that illegal registration? Is no one in the Government even interested in serious breaches of employment legislation by such important organisations? If they are not interested, they should be.
The JIB gained considerable material benefits from being registered as a trade union. The research division of the Commons Library wrote to me in 1996 and said that


registration as a trade union with a certification officer is one of the requirements for attaining certain tax exemptions. This year, the Inland Revenue wrote to me admitting that the JIB had set up a provident fund on 1 October 1977 and that payments out of that fund were allowable as a deduction against tax. That concession stopped only when the JIB deregistered as a trade union in 1991. Thus for at least 14 years, the JIB was receiving tax allowances to which it was legally not entitled. If the Government are not interested in investigating that, I suggest that they should be.
There are other serious concerns about the JIB. There has only ever been one instance when a Secretary of State substituted a dismissals procedure agreement between employers and trade unions for the statutory provision of unfair dismissals. That instance was the substitute agreement between the ECA and the EETPU, relating to the electrical contracting industry—the dismissals procedure agreement run by the JIB. That substitute agreement was allowed by the Secretary of State only on the premise that workers in the industry would have the right to independent arbitration.
Frank Graham has produced evidence that, although on paper the JIB dismissals procedure allows for access to independent arbitration, in reality that access is blocked. The JIB's procedure, as set out in its handbook, makes it clear that any appellant must give good reason to the JIB national board to justify reference to independent arbitration. Clearly, if the JIB national board does not accept those reasons, there will be no reference to independent arbitration for that appellant.
Frank Graham's claim is contested by the JIB, but to the best of my knowledge, the dispute between him and the JIB on this issue has never been independently investigated. Given the unique nature of the substitute agreement run by the JIB, should not Ministers mount just such an investigation?
On the current legal status of the JIB, we know that it is no longer a registered trade union. I have correspondence from the certification officer, in which he admits that neither is it an employers' association. The JIB itself now claims to be an unincorporated association. According to the Library, legal controls prevent large organisations from operating as unincorporated corporations of association. Should not those controls apply to the JIB, which, by any standards, is a very large organisation?
I have also seen annual returns from Companies House for a company called JIB Ltd.—a private company limited by shares, which has the same address and the same secretary as the old JIB trade union, but which retains no record of holding any of the old trade union's assets. Who now controls those large assets, which once belonged to the JIB trade union?
This state of affairs is totally unsatisfactory. We simply do not know the current legal status of the JIB. If it is an unincorporated association, it has no legal personality of its own. We do not know who is legally responsible for registering it, to whom it makes returns, or who holds it to account. For a large and wealthy organisation that exercises tight control over one of our most important industrial sectors, that is entirely unacceptable.
There are any number of outstanding questions. For example, why was the JIB ever allowed to register as a trade union? Why did those in authority support such registration until such time as the lone campaign by my constituent forced them to do a U-turn? Why have claims about special ministerial dispensation by the JIB never been investigated? Why has no one in the JIB ever been held to account for the misleading statements that they made about it? Why were tax concessions, which are available only to registered trade unions, paid out to an organisation that was never a registered trade union? Has the Inland Revenue attempted to reclaim any of the moneys given out in those tax concessions?
Those and many other questions need to be answered. That is why I am asking the Minister to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the operation of the JIB from its inception in 1967 to the present day. Most importantly, that is why I am asking him, once he has carried out that investigation, to report back to the House on the outcome of his inquiries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on securing a debate on Government policy towards the Joint Industry Board. This is an important issue, and he has pursued it with great vigour and energy on behalf of his constituent. I appreciate the concerns that he has raised.
My hon. Friend has taken an interest in the affairs of the JIB for many years. In July 1997, he met my predecessor as the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible for employment relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), to discuss his concerns. He has corresponded with him on several occasions, both before and after this meeting. Moreover, he has tabled a number of parliamentary questions about the JIB, the most recent of which was answered in January this year.
My hon. Friend has built up a great knowledge of the JIB, as his speech has amply shown. As someone with limited previous experience of the JIB, I feel that my knowledge has been significantly enhanced by listening to his contribution.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues, and I shall try in the time available to deal with his main concerns and questions. He referred to the history of this organisation, and has raised questions about its past and current legal status. As he said, the JIB has had within its membership both a union—currently the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union—and an employers' organisation, the Electrical Contractors Association. I understand that it also has individual companies and workers employed by those companies in its membership.
The JIB has been in existence for more than 30 years. For much of that period, it was registered as a trade union, first by the chief registrar of friendly societies and subsequently by the certification officer. I shall not go into the convoluted history of the JIB and its on-and-off registration as a union, because there is not time. Suffice it to say that the law on trade unions has changed considerably over the years.
As a former trade union leader, I know only too well how frequently the legal goalposts have been moved. Those changes have probably affected the views of the


public bodies concerned as to whether the JIB met the criteria for registration at the time. They may also have affected the JIB's views on the desirability of being so registered.
The current position is that the JIB is not registered as a trade union. As my hon. Friend said, it removed itself from the list in 1991. It is not the Government's responsibility to say whether the organisation is, or is not, a union. That is a matter for the certification officer and the courts to determine as cases arise. However, it seems likely that it is not a trade union. I believe that that is the view taken by the certification officer, and perhaps by the JIB itself.
I understand that the JIB currently classifies itself as an unincorporated association. As such, it would not have a legal personality of its own. It would, however, have to make returns for tax purposes to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

Mr. McAllion: As the Minister says, the JIB has to make returns to the Inland Revenue, but the Inland Revenue refuses to give any details of those returns or to put them in the public domain, so no one knows what the nature of this organisation is. Does the Minister think that that is a serious problem for the Government?

Mr. Johnson: That is a matter for the Inland Revenue. Our ministerial responsibility is to address the important point that has been made about the JIB's status as a trade union and its operation under the definition that has applied at various times over the 30 years of its existence.
As for the influence that individual electricians have over the affairs of the organisation, such matters should be laid down in the JIB's rules and constitutional arrangements. In that sense, it is no different from any other unincorporated association. Obviously, trade union law will not apply, unless it can be shown that the JIB is a union; and as I said, that does not seem likely.
However, trade union law applies to the relationship between individual electricians who are members of the AEEU—and who are also members of the JIB—and the AEEU. If individuals are concerned that the AEEU is infringing union law and its rules through its dealings with the JIB, they can always take up the matter with the union. If necessary, they can take their complaints to the courts or to the certification officer. Only yesterday, the provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 came into force, extending the certification officer's powers to determine complaints by a union member that his or her union had infringed union law or rules. We believe that the certification officer represents a more accessible and informal way than the courts for individual union members to resolve problems with their unions.
Let me now deal with legislation on dismissal procedure agreements. My hon. Friend pointed out that his constituent had been dismissed outside the employment tribunal system. The normal redress for an employee who believes that he or she has been unfairly dismissed is a complaint to an employment tribunal. Although employment tribunals do a good job of resolving such disputes, the employment rights legislation sensibly enables employers and independent trade unions to opt out of their statutory obligations on unfair dismissal—I stress that this does not cover other jurisdictions—by adopting other procedures in their place.
Of course, there must be safeguards. Such an agreement can have effect only if it has been designated by the Secretary of State, and it will be designated only if it meets certain conditions laid down in the legislation. For example, the agreement must provide remedies for unfair dismissal that are, on the whole, as beneficial as the statutory remedies.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, only one such agreement has been designated—for the JIB, where designated procedures have been operating, with some revisions, since 1979. My hon. Friend said that there was a discrepancy between the wording of the dismissal procedure and the JIB handbook in regard to the right to an independent arbitrator. As I think he knows, that has been taken up with the JIB, and the handbook was amended to bring it into line with the DPA.
The JIB sees itself as an important industrial relations institution for its sector. It is through the JIB that the main collective agreements affecting the industry are voluntarily negotiated between the AEEU and the Electrical Contractors Association. I understand that the JIB also gives cards to individual electricians who join, grading them according to their level of training and occupational attainment.
Generally, electricians with JIB cards will work for companies that are themselves members of the JIB, but as far as I am aware JIB rules do not require member companies to employ only electricians with such cards, so there is no reason to believe that the JIB operates some kind of closed-shop practice under another guise.
The JIB is an organisation with an unusual history. My hon. Friend may imply that "unusual" implies "suspect", but on the evidence presented to me and to my predecessor, we cannot share that judgment. My hon. Friend asked why the Government had not investigated why the JIB was ever registered as a union, and asked whether we could set up an investigation now. I cannot answer for the activities of past Governments, but I see no reason to undertake an investigation now, eight years after the JIB was last registered as a union. There is no reason to believe that any public agency acted improperly in the affair. I understand that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Parliamentary Ombudsman—has been asked whether there was any administrative fault in the actions of the certification officer. He found that there was none, and was very clear in his rulings. As I have said, the JIB has an unusual history, but that is not sufficient reason to query its actions.
I will consider the arguments presented to me very carefully, but we are dealing with a case in which the individuals concerned had every right to raise the issues at the time, and which has been referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. My predecessor also examined the issue carefully. We are convinced that at every stage in the history of this affair, the JIB has registered properly under the terms of the legislation that existed at the time.
I understand the concern that has been caused to my hon. Friend's constituent. I will look at the issues again, but on the basis of what we know at the moment, we cannot support the holding of an investigation into issues that we believe have been properly dealt with by public bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.